Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Adenium arabicum

Hey folks. Sorry to keep spamming the project, but I keep coming upon issues that I need help on. I came upon Adenium arabicum, which has several issues. I couldn't immediately detect a copyright violation even though I suspect the descriptions of each type to be copy/pasted from somewhere. The larger issue is that Adenium says it's monotypic with "arabicum" an epithet at the subspecific level. I can't seem to untangle this one. Is it a cultivar? Adenium 'Arabicum'? Any help is appreciated. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 04:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't help you, but regarding spamming: how dare you keep drawing our focus back to writing the encyclopedia?!

Thanks, it is just what we need right now. ;-) Hesperian 05:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This, perhaps?--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yep. That looks like the website the author is associated with. I assume the author intended to release any text that appears on the site even though there's a copyright notice, but a lot of it appears to be descriptions of his/her/their own cultivars. The author hasn't been active since s/he wrote the articles. Also take a look at this. I'm inclined to trim the page and merge some information into Adenium. If the species is valid (and I couldn't find any references to it in a quick multidatabase library search), we could treat it that way. --Rkitko ^(talk) 05:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my, it's so cute I can't believe it. Please e-mail me the name of the nursery if it's on the West Coast so I can go get one before you delete the ad. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The last time I can across these plants, they were coming out of south east Asia. But that was over five years ago, maybe hes got a seller in the US by now.Hardyplants (talk) 07:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I added Adenium multiflorum. Can't figure out if it is a subspecies either. Many of the African Apocynaceae used as Bonsai are also used as arrow poisons in their native lands and can be problematic to the grower for this reason. I once had to move a bunch of them and a helper got cut pretty badly, as did the plant, which panicked all the gardeners because of the sap. --KP Botany (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)IPNI has it, but not the Adenium obesum subsp. arabicum of the Adenium article, and none of the Google hits for the latter include an author. In my experience, a lot of succulent fanciers play fast and loose with nomenclature.--Curtis Clark (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

IPNI tends to be incomplete with infraspecific names, so I don't think we can draw any conclusions from the absence of one. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There is this[1] looks like hes saying that Arabicum is an invalid name and it should be- Adenium obesum. Hardyplants (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw that site; my take was that they thought it was misidentified.--Curtis Clark (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Adenium arabicum as known in horticulture is native to a narrow strip near the coast on the western half of the southern Arabian peninsula (in Yemen and Saudi Arabia). The correct name for these plants is Adenium obesum, and the African plants we know as A. obesum must properly be called something else. In cultivation they are usually shrubs with massive caudexes. Plants grow rapidly and develop large caudexes in only a few years. Most plants flower mainly in spring before leafing out. Better clones flower sporadically throughout the year.

when I followed the link this is what came up - but its not very authoritative. Hardyplants (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Google Scholar comes up with Hargreaves BJ. 2002 How many species of Adenium are there? Asklepios no.85. 4-6 (2002), and Das AB, Mohanty S, Das P (1999) Chromosome number, karyotype and nuclear DNA content in some Adenium species of the family Apocynaceae. Cytobios 98, 95-104, which, if anyone can find copies, might be helpful. But this looks like another of those lumper-splitter things. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Salsola (tumbleweed) needs info on native habitats

The article Salsola (aka the Tumbleweed, Saltwort, or Russian thistle) says: "Salsola ... is a genus of herbs, subshrubs, shrubs, and small trees ... native to Africa, Asia, and Europe". However, the article largely focuses on Salsola in North America. Can anybody add some info on Salsola in its native habitats? -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The article needs some work on this and other parts. Thanks for pointing this out. I will see what I can do, and hopefully other plant editors can look into it. --KP Botany (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have two separate articles on "the" tumbleweed: Salsola and Sisymbrium altissimum. I think that we need to sort this out.

User:Una_Smith is requesting that the current disambiguation for tumbleweed be changed - see Talk:Tumbleweed_(disambiguation)#Requested_move.

I am neither a botanist nor do I understand exactly what the disambiguation issue is here (therefore I'm just assuming that User:Una_Smith is right about this. :-) )

Anybody here feel like doing anything with this? -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Now we have a new article, Tumbleweed (diaspore), about the tumbleweed habit, and Tumbleweed (disambiguation) includes a list of plant common names that include "tumbleweed". I hope now it is clear why I have requested a move of the disambiguation page to Tumbleweed. Please weigh in on Talk:Tumbleweed (disambiguation)#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no amount of wikilawyering and policy shopping on your part is going to be used to prove any point you've made. In fact, you haven't provided one shred of evidence for anything you've advanced, except for your willingness to waste other editor's time. --KP Botany (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

KP Botany filed an ANI against me, here. --Una Smith (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The ANI is morphing into an ANI about disambiguation pages in general, and has spilled over to [[Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. --Una Smith (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bamboo genera

I created this category to link all the bamboo genera onto a single page, but, now, it occurs to me this may not be the naming protocol for the category. Should it be called something else, surely not genera of bamboo? I will finish the categorizing, though, because I want them all in one place so I can start adding information. --KP Botany (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say this category is in pretty good company: Category:Alismatales families, Category:Angiosperm families, Category:Angiosperm orders, Category:Asparagales families, Category:Asterales families, Category:Asterid families, Category:Brassicales families, Category:Caryophyllales families, Category:Chlorophyceae families, Category:Commelinid families, Category:Ericales families, Category:Eudicot families, Category:Lamiales families, Category:Liliales families, Category:Magnoliid families, Category:Malpighiales families, Category:Malvales families, Category:Monocot families, Category:Moss families, Category:Myrtales families, Category:Orchid genera, Category:Orchid species, Category:Orchid subfamilies, Category:Orchid subgenera, Category:Orchid subtribes, Category:Orchid tribes, Category:Pinales families, Category:Plant families, Category:Plant genera, Category:Plant orders, Category:Plant species, Category:Plant subfamilies, Category:Plant subgenera, Category:Plant subtribes, Category:Plant tribes, Category:Poales families, Category:Proteaceae genera, Category:Pteridophyta families, Category:Rosid families, Category:Saxifragales families. Based on all of those, either "Bamboo genera" or "Bambusoideae genera" sound about right. Hesperian 10:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I debated Bambusoideae for one nanosecond, but then got rank confusion.... Thanks for the feedback. --KP Botany (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Disclosure that I created most of the above (although the "[Taxon] [rank]s" convention was already in place when I started. I've only done down to family rank but will gradually push down to genus level. My (illegible) notes on the topic are at User:Hesperian/Notes/Ranks. Hesperian 10:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Orchid species? If you really want to test scalability, go for Category:Beetle species.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not even rank amateurs are going to nibble that one,Curtis, even chocolate covered. --KP Botany (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't create Category:Orchid species, but I don't have a problem with it either. If it gets too big we can just break out Category:Epidendroideae species etc. Hesperian 03:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Common name without commonly known scientific name

Category:Hybrid Rubus lists numerous articles about Rubus (raspberry) hybrids, titled using the most commonly used common name of the plant. These page titles may be a better alternative than using the scientific identification of the hybrid. Thoughts? --Una Smith (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

On looking at more of these articles, I think all of them could be usefully gathered into a single article, Rubus hybrid, with each common name represented by a section in the article and a redirect. --Una Smith (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

With common agricultural products there is enough information to write fairly lengthy articles, joining them, which seems at first a good idea to me, would only result in later splitting them. Also, I don't generally write about hybrids, but whatever the policy for hybrids is, all of these are commonly enough known like "wheat" to merit their own articles under their common names as the food-stuffs. Separate articles could be added pulling out the botanical information if the articles get long. That's my opinion, but hybrids are not my area. --KP Botany (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

They all appear to be cultivars (Rubus also hybridizes in the wild), and so they are arguably articles about plant products. Also arguably, in some cases their parents may not be firmly established, so it would be less precise to use a hybrid formula than to use the common name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

{{GRIN}}

We Aussies seem to be way ahead of the game when it comes to templating our online sources: {{APNI}}, {{Flora of Australia Online}}, {{SPRAT}}, {{FloraBase}}, {{NSW Flora Online}}.... Anyhow, I just created {{GRIN}}. Use it wisely. Hesperian 13:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please template the American sources, too? Well, maybe I can. Are any already templated? I finally made myself a user page with some of mine, and will keep adding to it, but I'd love them for the Delta-intkey families, MOBOT APG II web, and the main APG II and APG I articles, USDA, .... --KP Botany (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

USDA PLANTS database exists, but at {{NRCS Plants Profile}}. You can browse the other external link templates at Category:Flora external link templates and Category:Biology external link templates. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Rkitko. --KP Botany (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Identify a flower/plant for me?

Does anyone know what type pf plant/flower this is (Image 01) (Image 02) (Image 03)? Thanks in advance Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 04:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a Grevillea—a very popular garden cultivar whose name escapes me right now. No doubt Melburnian will be along shortly to give you a more detailed answer. Hesperian 04:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Image 01 appears to be Grevillea 'Robyn Gordon', I'm not sure about the other 2 images. There's further information and photos at List of Grevillea cultivars. Melburnian (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Autochthony speaks. I know very little about plants. I also know that having images in an article [not merely available elsewhere, Wikicommons, via Google, wherever] enriches the article - especially for plants.

I note the Wikipedia policy, but suggest, timidly, that having good images really helps articles on plants - especially; if only because few people know much about them. 81.157.223.75 (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Tuft

Tuft is an aeronautics article—not very good for linking to when writing about grasses whose growth habit is a tuft, as opposed to a tussock, hummock, herb, etc. Are there any prospects for an article called tuft (grass), or would such an article necessarily be nothing more than a dictionary definition? Are these terms even well-defined? Hesperian 11:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The term is used for other plants too, "rock garden" plants are often described as tufts or spreading. Will there be a page on this topic, its hard to come up with more than a paragraph or two of detail - excluding a list of plants with this growth form. But I would image that its more commonly used for plants than for aeronautics. Hardyplants (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is also used for birds—e.g. Tufted Antshrike—and in textiles—e.g. Tufting. Hesperian 12:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many more: Special:PrefixIndex/Tuft lists all pages that begin with "Tuft". I am thinking Tuft should be a disambiguation page, because arguably the primary topic is the dictionary definition. Move the article now at Tuft to Tuft (aeronautic)? But the bigger question for this project is how to handle all the common names with "tuft" or "tufted" in them, beyond putting them in Category:Plant common names. Eventually that category will be so large that it will have subpages A, B, C, etc, which will impede text searching of the category. Should we put all the common names on disambiguation pages? Should we put them on separate set index pages eg Tuft (common name part)? --Una Smith (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree - it should be a dab page. As for the rest of Una's question...I wish I knew. And along those lines... Guettarda (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To get started, I made Tuft (disambiguation). It is long, and maybe food for thought about how best to handle plant common names. --Una Smith (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Una, Tuft (disambiguation) is for articles on topics that some people know as "tuft"; that is, articles that people might be looking for when they type "Tuft" into the search box, and press Go. People do not type in "Tuft" when they are looking for information on the Red-tufted Sunbird.

Hang on a sec; surely there is policy on this somewhere... found it: Wikipedia:DAB#Partial title matches:

"Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices."

Hesperian 03:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that guideline. But consider that common names may require an exception. If the reader is not sure what the name is, and they get it wrong, will they be able to find the article? Considering the number of names with the patterns "X-tufted foo" and "tufted-X foo", isn't there potential for confusion between Golden-tufted Grackle and Tufted Golden Grackle. I agree that this is not usual disambiguation page material, but perhaps it does need to be addressed. Set index articles are not supposed to be disambiguation pages, but often that is where they start out. --Una Smith (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Viable lists?

There was a recent deletion debate about the List of edible flowers. Apart from sourcing problems, the question of whether lists like that are workable at all was raised (yeah, it was raised by me, but that's beside the point). I just came across a few similar lists

• List of plants with edible leaves
• List of honey plants
• List of trees and shrubs by taxonomic family

I think that list of honey plants is important, although very difficult to maintain. Plants with edible leaves is iffy, IMO, and "trees and shrubs by taxonomic family" is almost unworkable. On the other hand, that was not seen as a problem in the deletion debate over the list of edible flowers. I'm a list maker myself, and I'm most definitely not a deletionist. I realise that problems like this aren't new. But I thought it might be interesting to solicit some opinions here... Guettarda (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

At heart, all of these lists are attempts to find the intersection of sets, the sets being Wikipedia categories. So it is conceivable we could direct users to use an external search tool to find the sets of interest to them. Ie, without editorial labor! CategoryIntersect on CatScan is such a tool, and using just now, a search for articles on English Wikipedia that are in Category:Trees and Category:Pinus returned 66 articles (about half common names, half scientific names). To make tools like that useful, far more work would be needed on putting articles into categories. Eg, Category:Edible leaves, Category:Honey plants, etc. --Una Smith (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Similar to lists are categories such as Category:Roystonea species by common name. I am thinking the pages in this category could be placed in Category:Plant common names and Category:Roystonea, then the set of common names applied to Roystonea species could be recovered at any time using CategoryIntersect or a similar tool. --Una Smith (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Tumbleweed (diaspore)

Hours ago KP Botany tagged Tumbleweed (diaspore) for speedy deletion and it was deleted before I had a chance to tag it {{hangon}}. That was a 1.7KB article that I was getting ready to submit as a Did You Know item. It is not too late though. I have put a hangon tag on the blank page, and I would appreciate help getting it restored. You can do that by commenting on Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore). Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Did it get moved to tumbleweed ? Hardyplants (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. KP Botany moved the article and tagged the redirect for speedy deletion with the criteria "patent nonsense". I'd like both Tumbleweed (diaspore) and Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore) restored, to recover their complete edit histories. --Una Smith (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Hardy, I moved it simply to tumbleweed. And, yes, Una, patent nonsense is the appropriate speedy for patent nonsense. However, as they were moved, the both still exist, nothing being destroyed. I will, however, provide you with links to both articles and their histories, here: Tumbleweed and Talk:Tumbleweed. You can click on the edit histories to see that this is so. For example, here is your move to tumbleweed (diaspore). --KP Botany (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. At current count,

• Tumbleweed (diaspore) has been moved once and deleted three times (log)
• Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore) has moved once been deleted twice (log)

The deletions need to be restored to recover the edit histories of those pages subsequent to the move by KP Botany. --Una Smith (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would welcome any proposal of a central place to hold the Tumbleweed discussion. I see that a thread has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Speedy bold move revert section.2Fproposal. That is one possible place. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anything is being discussed here. Una's requesting the article histories for an article that has been moved, not deleted--so the histories are not destroyed, they still exist. The tumbleweed name discussion was on its talk page. Which is probably a good place to have it. --KP Botany (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

KB Botany, examine the logs:

• Tumbleweed (diaspore) has been moved once and deleted three times (log)
• Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore) has moved once been deleted twice (log)

Edit histories from after you moved the page have been deleted and do require an admin to restore. --Una Smith (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(reply to EdJohnson) The most discussion is on the AN/I page, here. --Una Smith (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit history of tumbleweed diaspore

Here, here's your move and my move, both in edit history. Just click on the history--that's where it is. --KP Botany (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. r) (last) 11:22, 2009 January 5 Orlady (Talk | contribs) (5,576 bytes) (added species name to caption) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 11:20, 2009 January 5 Orlady (Talk | contribs) m (5,555 bytes) (→Plants forming tumbleweeds: link addition and typo fix) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 11:03, 2009 January 5 Hardyplants (Talk | contribs) (5,543 bytes) (→Plants forming tumbleweeds: add ion some grasses and a ref) (undo)
4. (cur) (last) 10:56, 2009 January 5 Orlady (Talk | contribs) (4,984 bytes) (removed External links heading; there are no text links (just a Commons cat), so it is confusing; put References above ELs per MOS) (undo)
5. (cur) (last) 10:54, 2009 January 5 Orlady (Talk | contribs) m (5,002 bytes) (→Plants forming tumbleweeds: 2 more internal links) (undo)
6. (cur) (last) 10:52, 2009 January 5 Orlady (Talk | contribs) m (4,994 bytes) (→Plants forming tumbleweeds: link to Weed) (undo)
7. (cur) (last) 10:51, 2009 January 5 Orlady (Talk | contribs) (4,990 bytes) (removing obfuscatory verbiage from the lead section; restoring anatomical discussion to the "Anatomy" section) (undo)
8. (cur) (last) 10:32, 2009 January 5 Una Smith (Talk | contribs) (5,072 bytes) (rewrite lead, move some text) (undo)
9. (cur) (last) 05:00, 2009 January 5 JHunterJ (Talk | contribs) m (4,977 bytes) (better hatnote) (undo)
10. (cur) (last) 20:54, 2009 January 4 KP Botany (Talk | contribs) (5,010 bytes) (→Plants forming tumbleweeds: rare means few, extremely rare should be so few as to be qualified, then a number will surfice; better English; feel free to use number instead) (undo)
11. (cur) (last) 20:53, 2009 January 4 KP Botany (Talk | contribs) m (5,020 bytes) (this article is about plants, not about plants and other things called tumbleweeds -- link to dab funky) (undo)
12. (cur) (last) 19:41, 2009 January 4 KP Botany (Talk | contribs) (5,037 bytes) (they're angiosperms, they're dispersing seeds, not spores, although technically there are probably some spores around, but this article isn't about that) (undo)
13. (cur) (last) 19:25, 2009 January 4 KP Botany (Talk | contribs) m (5,049 bytes) (remove tag, moved article to its proper name) (undo)
14. (cur) (last) 19:24, 2009 January 4 KP Botany (Talk | contribs) m (5,104 bytes) (moved Tumbleweed (diaspore) to Tumbleweed over redirect: no consensus for ridiculous title that isn't explained in article) (undo)
15. (cur) (last) 19:23, 2009 January 4 KP Botany (Talk | contribs) (5,104 bytes) (confusing, article doesn't say what a diaspore is and links to section of spore that talks about needing micrscope to see it, but no micrographs in this article) (undo)
16. (cur) (last) 16:56, 2009 January 4 Una Smith (Talk | contribs) (5,082 bytes) (fix link) (undo)
17. (cur) (last) 10:09, 2009 January 4 Una Smith (Talk | contribs) (5,081 bytes) (see also) (undo)
18. (cur) (last) 05:23, 2009 January 4 SmackBot (Talk | contribs) m (5,040 bytes) (Date maintenance tags and general fixes) (undo)
19. (cur) (last) 23:34, 2009 January 3 Una Smith (Talk | contribs) (5,004 bytes) (fix ref) (undo)
20. (cur) (last) 23:25, 2009 January 3 Una Smith (Talk | contribs) (4,947 bytes) (Ganong ref) (undo)
21. (cur) (last) 23:24, 2009 January 3 Hardyplants (Talk | contribs) (4,594 bytes) (→Plants forming tumbleweeds: add some info- needs to be blended with the "species" above- sorry for the mess.) (undo)
22. (cur) (last) 23:13, 2009 January 3 Una Smith (Talk | contribs) (3,524 bytes) (→Plants forming tumbleweeds: +1) (undo)
23. (cur) (last) 22:32, 2009 January 3 Una Smith (Talk | contribs) (3,504 bytes) (→Plants forming tumbleweeds: +image, compare desert tumbleweeds) (undo)
24. (cur) (last) 21:59, 2009 January 3 Una Smith (Talk | contribs) (3,336 bytes) (wikify) (undo)
25. (cur) (last) 21:39, 2009 January 3 Una Smith (Talk | contribs) (3,317 bytes) (cleanup) (undo)
26. (cur) (last) 21:34, 2009 January 3 Una Smith (Talk | contribs) (3,364 bytes) (reorg, wikify) (undo)
27. (cur) (last) 21:28, 2009 January 3 Una Smith (Talk | contribs) (3,289 bytes) (expand, cleanup (common names belong on dab page)) (undo)
28. (cur) (last) 21:26, 2009 January 3 Una Smith (Talk | contribs) m (1,717 bytes) (moved Tumbleweed to Tumbleweed (diaspore): disambiguation, precision) (undo)

Edit history of talk tumbleweed diaspore including bolding of moves -- no admin needs to do this

1. (cur) (last) 13:01, 2009 January 5 KP Botany (Talk | contribs) (6,248 bytes) (→Move to neologism: confusion was in your wikilink and title choice) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 10:45, 2009 January 5 Una Smith (Talk | contribs) (5,789 bytes) (→The worthless wikilinking to spores: new article, disambiguate) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 10:35, 2009 January 5 Una Smith (Talk | contribs) (4,889 bytes) (→Move to neologism: diaspore is not a neologism) (undo)
4. (cur) (last) 23:20, 2009 January 4 KP Botany (Talk | contribs) (4,620 bytes) (oops) (undo)
5. (cur) (last) 23:19, 2009 January 4 KP Botany (Talk | contribs) (4,664 bytes) (speedy -- delete talk page of non-existant article) (undo)
6. (cur) (last) 21:25, 2009 January 4 Lar (Talk | contribs) (4,620 bytes) (not a stub in my view, make this a Start. I may be wrong about the importance though) (undo)
7. (cur) (last) 19:31, 2009 January 4 KP Botany (Talk | contribs) (4,616 bytes) (→I moved it.: new section) (undo)
8. (cur) (last) 19:24, 2009 January 4 KP Botany (Talk | contribs) m (4,374 bytes) (moved Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore) to Talk:Tumbleweed over redirect: no consensus for ridiculous title that isn't explained in article) (undo)
9. (cur) (last) 19:00, 2009 January 4 KP Botany (Talk | contribs) (4,374 bytes) (→Move to neologism: yes, it's a pointy little argument, this article is about a microscopic tumbling spore) (undo)
10. (cur) (last) 18:57, 2009 January 4 KP Botany (Talk | contribs) (3,474 bytes) (→Move to neologism: sections, the worhtless wikinking to microscopic spores still doesn't mean this article explains or supports its own title now) (undo)
11. (cur) (last) 18:39, 2009 January 4 KP Botany (Talk | contribs) (3,433 bytes) (→Move to neologism: trying to link to Angiosperm spores and claiming this article is about that doesn't help, it just makes it far sillier) (undo)
12. (cur) (last) 17:02, 2009 January 4 Orlady (Talk | contribs) m (2,912 bytes) (→Move to neologism: missing punctuation) (undo)
13. (cur) (last) 17:01, 2009 January 4 Orlady (Talk | contribs) (2,911 bytes) (confusion reigns) (undo)
14. (cur) (last) 00:08, 2009 January 4 Lar (Talk | contribs) (1,782 bytes) (→Move to neologism: indeed) (undo)
15. (cur) (last) 21:37, 2009 January 3 KP Botany (Talk | contribs) (1,560 bytes) (→Notice of requested move: oh, man,you didn't just do this) (undo)
16. (cur) (last) 21:26, 2009 January 3 Una Smith (Talk | contribs) m (1,342 bytes) (moved Talk:Tumbleweed to Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore): disambiguation, precision) (undo)

Continuing...

KP Botany, those are the edit histories of the articles now at Tumbleweed and Talk:Tumbleweed. They are not the edit histories of Tumbleweed (diaspore) and Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore) since your move. --Una Smith (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If this is not clear, compare the timestamps on the logs vs the edit histories of the pages KP Botany moved. --Una Smith (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Una, those articles edit summaries are the edit summaries in between when you moved the article to t diaspore, and when I moved it back. I bolded these entries in both cases for you to find them easily. Please, simply look. --KP Botany (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. KP Botany, after you moved the pages, and before they were deleted, additional edits were made to Tumbleweed (diaspore) and Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore). The histories of those additional edits were deleted. --Una Smith (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Una, you requested the edit histories, above, and elsewhere, for this purpose, "That was a 1.7KB article that I was getting ready to submit as a Did You Know item." All of the information you added to the article, unless you recreated the "tumbleweed (diaspore)" article is in those edit histories for the article, between when you moved it and when I moved it. Please, take a breath, and think about this for a moment. Do you think some anonymous person jumped on Wikipedia and added tons of context to a deleted page? I have no idea what you are trying to get, but your text was added before the article was deleted!

And, no, additional edits were not made. The move changed it to redirect. --KP Botany (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And, this is enough. --KP Botany (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what Una is trying to say is that there were edits to the redirect pages left at Tumbleweed (diaspore) and Talk:Tumbleweed (diaspore) after the last move, and before the speedy delete. (That's all I can figure.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Curtis is correct. KP Botany, please stop and look the logs and ask yourself this question: If there were no additional edits, how could those pages have been deleted 2 and 3 times? --Una Smith (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

KP Botany, how are you coming on disambiguating the 43 incoming links to Tumbleweed? You put the article there, so that little chore is yours. --Una Smith (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored, for the sole purpose of giving access to the history, for the sake of the discussion. I have no comment on the dispute, at this stage. Hesperian 03:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, at this point, the discussion is moot, since KP Botany has again left the project following all the silliness. The 1.7K version Una was looking for is this one at Tumbleweed, I guess. --Amalthea 03:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Quadrinomial name"

Euphorbia tannensis var. finlaysonii
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
(unranked):	Angiosperms
(unranked):	Eudicots
(unranked):	Rosids
Order:	Malpighiales
Family:	Euphorbiaceae
Genus:	Euphorbia
Species:	E. tannensis
Subspecies:	E. tannensis subsp. eremophila
Variety:	E. tannensis var. eremophila
Trinomial name
Euphorbia tannensis subsp. eremophila var. finlaysonii (J.M.Black) D.C.Hassall

It had to happen eventually: I've finally created an article on a variety of a subspecies. Well, two actually: Euphorbia tannensis var. eremophila and Euphorbia tannensis var. finlaysonii. As I understand it, it is permissable to refer to these by both their shorter, trinomial names, as in these titles; or by their fully ranked names, i.e. "Euphorbia tannensis subsp. eremophila var. eremophila" and "Euphorbia tannensis subsp. eremophila var. finlaysonii.

I am quite happy to entitle these articles with their shorter names—indeed I think it ought to be in our convention—but I believe it is in the spirit of the "Binomial name"/"Trinomial name" section of the taxobox to provide a fully ranked name there. You can see my problem: the fully ranked name is neither binomial nor trinomial.

I am happy to update the taxobox, but what should be done? Is there such a thing as a "Quadrinomial name"? Is "Full name" an acceptable alternative?

Hesperian 13:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I initiated an exchange on the Taxacom mailing list some years ago about a similar issue, and it was pointed out to me (correctly) that a "quadrinomial" is a classification, not a name, so that, in your example, var. finlaysonii is a var of Euphorbia tannensis, not of Euphorbia tannensis subsp. eremophila. Let me see if I can find that in the archives.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Turns out it was about author citation. Here is a relevant post. Here is another piece of the thread (I can't figure out how to make Markmail give the the whole thread).--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The way I see it, var. finlaysonii is a variety of the subspecies irrespective of whether or not the rules of nomenclature allow us to express that fact in the name. But I suspect we are only disagreeing on semantics there.

What I'm taking out of this is:

1. "Euphorbia tannensis subsp. eremophila var. finlaysonii" is not a valid name. People sometimes use such constructs (indeed, Hassall did in the original publication) but that doesn't make them correct.
2. "Euphorbia tannensis var. finlaysonii" is the valid name.
3. This nomenclature does not change the fact that this is a variety of subsp. eremophila.

Does that sound about right?

Hesperian 03:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct. The Vienna Code below, as the Saint Louis and Tokyo Codes, makes it clear that anything more is a classification, not a name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. An interesting side-effect is I am compelled to give authorship to an autonym. E. tannensis var. eremophila is the autonymic variety of E. tannensis subsp. eremophila. Under the "quadrinomial" I could write

E. tannensis subsp. eremophila (A.Cunn.) D.C.Hassall var. eremophila.

Without it I am compelled to write

E. tannensis var. eremophila (A.Cunn.) D.C.Hassall

thus apparently giving authorship for what is an autonym. This situation would be downright offensive if not for the fact that the same author was involved at each rank.

Hesperian 03:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is rather annoying, but I don't see any way around it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing some research instead of just talking shit, for a change.

Firstly, the Vienna Code says

24.1. The name of an infraspecific taxon is a combination of the name of a species and an infraspecific epithet. A connecting term is used to denote the rank.

Ex. 1. Saxifraga aizoon subf. surculosa Engl. & Irmsch. This taxon may also be referred to as Saxifraga aizoon var. aizoon subvar. brevifolia f. multicaulis subf. surculosa Engl. & Irmsch.; in this way a full classification of the subforma within the species is given, not only its name.

I suspect I am going to have to read this twenty times before I begin to comprehend the disputes and compromises inherent in the wording, and its implications for us.

To me, it seems clear (maybe that should be a warning!). Saxifraga aizoon subf. surculosa Engl. & Irmsch is a name. Saxifraga aizoon var. aizoon subvar. brevifolia f. multicaulis subf. surculosa Engl. & Irmsch. is a classification, albeit on a single line. It can be used anywhere the name is used, but it is not itself a name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, an "autonym", by definition, encompasses the type material of the species. A variety that encompasses the type material of its subspecies, but not of its species, is not an autonym. And this is only a Recommendation:

26A.1. A variety including the type of the correct name of a subspecies, but not including the type of the correct name of the species, should, where there is no obstacle under the rules, be given a name with the same final epithet and type as the subspecies name.

So there is no problem with my "interesting side-effect".

Hesperian 04:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

But if ICBN had ICBN:DUCK, it would be an autonym.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets go back to the days of supper splitting so we have lots of fun with these long names - I want one of these so I can name it Saxifraga aizoon var. aizoon subvar. brevifolia f. multicaulis subf. surculosa 'Rosa' even if I have to abuse it with radation get a new color. Hardyplants (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Used properly, the radiation will let you see it in any color you wish.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

so true... and since its got a white flower all ready, I am sure its not that difficult. But I would probably screw up and use "real" radiation and lose my hair. Hardyplants (talk)

In the event see Psoralen: a terrific mutagen and recommended treatment for alopecia. --Una Smith (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This line concerns me a little: "Despite the photocarcinogenic properties of psoralen,[1] [2] It had been used as a tanning activator in sunscreens until 1996." It does not say what type of mutagen it is. So you think I can take care of two problems with one chemical - well I guess the next step is the find the plant. Hardyplants (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(I was joking...) That line worries me too. It is new since the last time I read the article, and I am wondering if it is true of sunscreens, or due to a confusion between sunscreen and tanning oil. --Una Smith (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys; I'm happy with the outcome here.[2][3][4][5]. Hesperian 05:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that should do it. What if the taxabox on the first one is made larger - the last part of the name is split on my large monitor. I take it your using this source [6]? Hardyplants (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no way to explicitly make a taxobox wider, but if you don't want a taxon to split, you can separate the components with non-breaking spaces ( ), and the taxobox will grow to accommodate that.

Hassall (1977) and APNI. Hassall (1977) is the best reference for what Hassall did; APNI is the best reference for the fact that Hassall's taxonomy has stood the test of time and is currently accepted. Hesperian 10:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Hesperian; I will copy the non-breaking spaces ( ) thingy - so the next time I might need it, I can remember it. Hardyplants (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth, I stumbled across the following in a flora (Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia by Alan S. Weakley):

I have been disinclined to use quadrinomials, as, for instance, Chamaecrista nictitans (Linnaeus) Moench ssp. nictitans var. aspera (Muhlenberg ex Elliott) Irwin & Barneby, because they generally strike me as unwieldy, impractical, and unnecessarily confusing, without providing sufficient compensating benefits (our state of knowledge rarely warranting or supporting such finely distinguished classifications of relationships).

Just one author's opinion, but it would appear to confirm the conclusions above. Kingdon (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

polygamy

It is now my turn to apologise for monopolising this board.

A question like my tuft question above: "polygamous" means bearing both perfect and imperfect flowers on the same plant. Our article on polygamy is about having multiple wives at the same time, so we can't link to it. Is polygamy (botany) capable of being more than a dictionary definition?

Hesperian 04:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How about a redirect to Plant sexuality#Plant population? --Una Smith (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good idea... except that I think that definition of polygamy is wrong, or maybe there are two uses of the term: (1) a polygamous plant, (2) a polygamous population. Hesperian 05:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two uses, but Number(2) is rare and even more rarely looked for and studied. It should link to a section that describes the most common use of the term (on the same plant). I can't remember if that usage is also on the plant sexuality page or not. If not that needs to be corrected. Hardyplants (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it is missing, I will work on right now. Hardyplants (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It was weakly already covered, I added more. Found a good source of information collect all together and after some other projects are done will revisit the Plant Sexuality page and beef it up with more info. Hardyplants (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You rock, Hardyplants. Hesperian 10:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree that Plant sexuality is the right place for this. Kingdon (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a side note: "polygamodioecious" was a term that cam up in some cases when I was studying plants in college (most memorably related to Gingkos, where (desirable) male cultivars would suddenly decide to be female and drop stinky fruits). Is that term no longer in use? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the term you want to use for male Gingkos producing female flowers is Protoandrous. Hardyplants (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that either protogynous or protandrous is the desired term - protandry and protogyny are forms of dichogamy, and I am unaware of them being also used for interannual sex-switching. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I do not not know the specifics of Gingko sex, just that they are sold as male trees because the fruit is a Little unpleasing. Does the whole;e tree change sex or just some of the flowers, do the flowers that change sex become perfect flowers or just the opposite sex. I will have to find a good description somewere. Thanks for the correction. Hardyplants (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Both synoecious and polygamodioecious as terms should be covered. Hardyplants (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I touched on sex-switching a little already but not polygamodioecious, should not be too hard to work it in some were. Hardyplants (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Done with polygamodioecious, note under population section - Having bisexual and male flowers on some plants with bisexual and female flowers on other plants.Hardyplants (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Names for Indian flowering shrubs and trees

In DV Cowen's book 'Flowering trees and shrubs in India' she gives alternative names for over 100 items in various languages used in India - Hindi, Urdu, Tamil, Sinhalese, Bengali, Malay, 'Tel' (?), 'Can' (?). As a test I added some of these to the article on Butea Flame of the Forest, and a couple to the Delonix regia Flamboyant article. I am not a botanist, but it seems to me that the conventions for listing names in other languages are not consistent, at least in these two articles. This is not an area that I want to spend too much time on, but comment would be most welcome on the value of adding more names and the style in which it should be done. Colinvlr (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Tel. is presumably Telugu. I'd guess that Can. is Kannada. Malay may be Malayalam, rather than Malay. (With Tamil, these four are the major Dravidian languages).

I have the impression that there is a widespread view that the documentation of non-English names in English Wikipedia should be sparing.

A point to bear in mind is that there are different translations of Indian scripts into the Roman alphabet. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be inclined to include the Hindi for most plants, but seek a more modern transliteration, which you can probably find on the web by searching the scientific name--after you do that, back track through the technical literature on a scholar search for articles in English by Indian subcontinent scientists that also mention the scientific name and common names, many of these will be only on medicinal plants. For plants also in the Flora of Pakistan you might want to include Urdu, maybe Punjabi. For plants that grow in the western parts of the Indian subcontinent you might also include Bengali. There are interesting endemics that are well-known and well-written about for which you might include the Tamil, also. Finding the correct and current transliteration for these plants into English from Tamil and Bengali might be a difficult task, but you can link the transliteration to the Cowen. For most plants, though, I would be disinclined to include all of the plant names transliterated from the many languages of India into English, sticking simply with the Hindi, maybe the Urdu or Bengali. For very well-known plants, especially when you can find a later transliteration than Cowen's, the Hindi might be sufficient. --KP Botany (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The preferred method of recording corresponding common names in other languages is to put them on Wiktionary, and include on the Wikipedia article a link to Wiktionary. --Una Smith (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with Una on this, with the caveat that a non-English name should be included if it relates to the etymology of an English name (e.g., Ginkgo biloba) or if the species is known in some contexts (for example, herbal medicine) by the non-English name (e.g. Ephedra).--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In general I agree with not including all of the names from multiple languages transliterated into English--for some plants, the list would run to hundreds of names.

I was addressing the specifics of this particular post, as, English is an official language in both India and Pakistan, and was used for education and among the educated classes in Bangladesh for many years. Often, common names for plants from these areas in the main languages, are used in English in South Asia, or in other parts of the English-speaking world (Australia and Africa for example), this especially with plants with long ethnobotanical or horticulture histories. These common names, although not part of the western English-speaking world, are properly part of the plant article in English, for some parts of the English-speaking world. However, for the editor of the article, it may be easiest to do a search to see if one can find the other common names in English, even just a web search through articles or books, and to include some of the names in the main languages as I listed above. I still suggest confirming the common names, transliterated, with searches on the scientific name, and only adding the ones in the main languages, if found, rather than bothering to add to Wiktionary or Wikispecies, especially from an older source such as Cowen. This can be done sometimes on google with English language only results, the common name as transliterated by Cowen, and the scientific name. --KP Botany (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for both those inputs. I ended up in wikispecies and long discussions about vernacular (not common) names. I asked some questions on the Wikispecies Village Pump and am waiting to see the responses. The problem I hit was that they're using the Vernacular Name VN template, which ends up showing the language itself in that language's alphabet, not in English, then expects you to put the vernacular name in that language's alphabet, not in English. For an English language version of this encyclopedia that doesn't make sense to me.Colinvlr (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikispecies isn't Wikipedia, and using the source script avoids the sometimes major problems of transliteration. Can you add the English transliteration in parentheses? --Una Smith (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikispecies isn't in English (there is just one wikispecies for all languages, unlike wikipedia or wiktionary), so putting the transliteration in parentheses would be a bit odd. Kingdon (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Joining the discussion rather late, I have a different take on this. I believe that we should document all verifiable vernacular names for plant species. Per NPOV, we should at the very least be including all verifiable names used for a plant species in English. Given the official status of English in southern India, there's no a priori valid reason for excluding these names. Giving special preference to US/Canada/UK/Australia worsens the problems of systematic bias. And while we're at it, in the interest of completeness (you know, that whole "sum total of human knowledge" thing), we should include verifiable vernacular names in other languages. That's certainly better than drawing some sort of arbitrary threshold of "usage of English" that we make up here.

Obviously fitting in more than a couple vernacular names creates problems. But that's just the reality of working with plants. Even if we restrict ourselves to countries where English has official status, or where English is spoken as a first language by more than x% of the population, we can still get dozens of common names. In Trinidad plants commonly have at least 3 common names - one 'Creole' name (usually of Spanish, French or Amerindian origin), one Indian name (Hindi, Bhojpuri or Tamil origins) and one English name (brought by immigrants from Barbados or the Lesser Antilles). And all of these constitute usage in English - almost no one speaks anything but English as their first language. So how to solve this problem? I think something like this is a workable solution. It documents verifiable vernacular names in a manner that is consistent with NPOV, avoids OR, and minimises systematic bias. And it still leaves room to include a few of the best-known names in the lead, if you really want to go that way. Guettarda (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

On the matter of practicality, my files contain approaching 100 names for Bombax ceiba. IIRC, there are plants with scores of dialectal names in England alone(e.g. Arum maculatum). Lavateraguy (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Autochthony suggests that "Tel" might be Telugu, another Indian Language. A suggestion only. 81.157.223.75 (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

New IDs

Need some more help with a couple of new IDs, all outdoors (but probably not native) in Tasmania, Australia:

• Epiphyllum 'Wendy'
  Epiphyllum 'Wendy'
• 
  Lillium, purple casing prior to opening
• Dahlia 'Graceland'
  Dahlia 'Graceland'
• On a 2m high plant with many long arms terminated with this thing
  On a 2m high plant with many long arms terminated with this thing

Thanks Noodle snacks (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not going to be too helpful. the first one is cactus could be Hatiora rosea or one of those Easter, Christmas types, The lily is going to be hard, because there are many hundreds - It looks almost like it could be a LA hybid (L.A. hybrids are a cross between longiflorum lilies and Asiatic hybrids); one way to tell is by the type of scent, if it has a fruity scent it is most likely a LA hybrid, and if it has a spicy or sickly pungent scent - it is a trumpet type hybrid. Number three is a Dahlia. And I have no idea what number 4 is. Hardyplants (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The last reminds me of Leucadendron. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I too thought the last one looked proteaceous. It is intriguing. It actually doesn't look like a flower; it looks like a woody infructescence, or maybe the remains of a flower, subtended by long bracts. Hesperian 10:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with Proteaceae and its anatomy, but I would also interpret the picture as showing a bracteate infructescence. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Which lens are you using for the pictures?. Hardyplants (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Last one didn't strike me as particularly flower like. I was using the 70-200 with a 12mm extension tube (20mm for the Dahlia). Noodle snacks (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have the 70-200mm L, its heavy and I do not use it much for plants. I use the 24-70mm 2.8 for most of my shots - because it works as a macro too when I need that. Never used extension tubes but I can see there value in giving you a more cropped look (beyond what the camera already gives) Hardyplants (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The tubes aren't strictly necessary at this magnification, but the 70-200 (and other lenses that use floating element focusing systems) tend to get quite soft around the minimum focus distance, so I get sharper results with tubes. I don't find it too heavy being used to my 400mm for birds. The 24-70 2.8 would be easier to use hand held (less camera shake due to shorter focal length). I also prefer the longer lens since I don't have to bend over to get close enough in many occasions (I have a bad back). The lens I have that is roughly in the 24-70's range is not compatible with my extension tubes at any rate. I occasionally use my 50mm for flower shots (the first shot used it actually), but it doesn't have any sharpness advantage stopped down over the zoom and it is more difficult to adjust the magnification with tubes. I suppose ideally one would use a macro lens like the sigma 150, but I don't think its really necessary, I didn't find it too difficult chasing around damselflies with the tubes. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Great capturer on the damselfly, My first lens was the sigma 50 mm Macro- its light, bright and crisp, tight focus depth though. Hardyplants (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Heck, the last one looks like an Agathis rather than like a flower. Can you describe the plant's habit or anything else? Oh, a bush, it seems. Proteaceae is weird enough, and who knows enough to argue against Lavateraguy's bracteate infructescence, anyway? Oh, there's a South African plant, that looks something like this, and it's habit is as described, it's used to make a tea--maybe it is a Proteaceae. Love the Dahlia. Anyone know the cultivar or whatever? I want one. --KP Botany (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to a South African Proteaceae habit such as you describe. The habit description was useful because it sounds like these South African bush Proteaceae I've seen while working in a South African collection. --KP Botany (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you go to Google image search you can find a lot of similar looking plants under Leucadendron. But the bracts in such images seem to be better organised, and a better imitation of a perianth - you could fairly describe the plants as involucrate. In the image above there are some bracts appearing within the infructescence. I've glanced at Flora Capensis 5,1: 502ff, but I'm not any wiser. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My best guess is that it is a Leucadendron salignum x laureolum hybrid cultivar, possibly 'Silvan Red'. Melburnian (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No luck looking around for the first one Hatiora rosea doesn't look right, petal shape is different and the flower on the unidentified version is much bigger in proportion to the plant. Leucadendron salignum x laureolum is looking on the right track, I'll have to keep an eye on the plant and see what happens. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You could try looking at Hatiora gaertneri and Hatiora ×graeserii (also to be found under Rhipsalis and Rhipsalidopsis). Lavateraguy (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A secound or two of hunting produces Schlumbergera gaertneri Christmas or Thanksgiving Cactus, the flower is not open all the way yet. Its a Schlumbergera species or more likely a hybrid. Hardyplants (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is link that might be helpful. [7] it covers all these plants. Hardyplants (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking the leaves reminded me of a plant we had back at home, but whose name I could not for the life of me remember XD Circeus (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The correct Id realy comes down to the what type of branch segments to plant has, if they are thick its Hatiora group (Rhipsalis as Lavateraguy points out is the correct name now) if the segments are thin then its the Schlumbergera group. My family has grown one or more representive of each and killed them all except the 'Schlumbergera' x 'bridgesii' that we got from our grandmother around 1967. Hardyplants (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking it looks more like an Ephipyllum cultivar. Melburnian (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I will buy that answer...Epiphyllum cultivars it is. The stem segments look right, and the number of stamens and placement of the style looks correct too. If only we could see the back of the flower. Hardyplants (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a Epiphyllum cultivar looks much closer. I do have a snapshot of the foliage somewhere, but I think there is enough information to identify it from that. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How many of these Cactus are there any way, did not think there were that many that grow on trees. In the future, when taking picture of a unknown flower, try to get snap shot of the back of the flower and one of the foliage. After I take the picture I want of a flower, I try to get a few quick shots of other areas of the plant - so when it is time to make an ID, I can remember what some of the other characters are, I know its not always practical because most of the time people just want a shot of the pretty flower and do not worry about what plant species it is until later. Here is a link [8] - lots of attractive flowers. Hardyplants (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Lily (second from left) is 'Conca D'Or', which is either a hybrid or a cv. of Lilium orientale, depending on which source you believe. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Check out [9] Lilium 'Conca D'Or' has still a general tepal shape of the orientals, with a some straight lines and sharp tips that are recurved. The picture up above has smooth gentally curving edges. The crosses between the Orientals and Trumpet lilies are nice distinctive plants, I have a few and really like them. Most Orientals and Trumpet lilies hybrids still have remnants of the claw-like bumps on the tepals which the picture above lacks. Not much of a lover of the Orientals, its the smell, it makes me sick plus every one has the 'Casablanca' and 'Stargazer', which around here are more often grown as disposable pot plants. Hardyplants (talk)

Also note the attachment point of the anthers, in the Orientals and on 'Conca D'Or' ( better pictures here [10] its in the middle - so they dangle in the air. While in the picture above the attachment point is on the end like a Trumpet or Asiatic types. Hardyplants (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Need help

Need help developing Citrus macroptera, a new article about a rare citrus from Bangladesh (also needs taxobox). Thank you kindly, Badagnani (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Lycium

Might I ask as to why there is a long list of species, most of which don't have articles, that is as long as the articles themselves? Colonel Marksman (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Boxthorn? The list isn't that long. If lists are too long and people feel like patiently working with it, you can always get separate list articles for species in a genus, like list of Utricularia species. Common practice is to list and link all species in a genus, whether or not they have articles yet. Do you see a disadvantage to this, or were you just wondering what to do with long lists of species? If I haven't answered your question, clarification would be helpful. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 20:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Might I ask why there ought not be a list of species? Hesperian 00:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I could take this on all kinds of tangents, but I'll generally second the idea of listing the species, one way or another. Kingdon (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

MetaBanner

Hey, folks. I'm not sure if anyone cares or pays attention to the back end of the project, but I thought I'd ask before editing. Does anyone have any objections to changing our {{WikiProject Plants}} banner over to the {{WPBannerMeta}} format? No functionality will be lost, the appearance won't change, and all categories will remain the same. It just makes it easier for future alterations to be changed on a larger level. I also thought I'd add the link to our portal in the process. Objections/thoughts? I suppose if I hear nothing in a week, I'll just go ahead. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 20:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

So it seems there's no downside?--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the biggie is the learning curve. Anyone who used to manage the old templates and knew them well have to relearn how to manage it, though I suppose the point is that it will all be easier in the end for top-down management. Other than that, no, I don't see any downside. There's potential for a lot of customization and room for expansion if necessary. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is (mostly at least) a learning curve for the task of editing templates, not just adding a banner to a talk page, right? As for whether I care about banners, the #1 reason is probably Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Article alerts. {{WPBannerMeta}} seems like a good idea. Kingdon (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's no functionality lost, it's fine by me. I don't change templates, so don't care about that end. --KP Botany (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Socratea exorrhiza, the Walking Palm

"Socratea exorrhiza, the Walking Palm ... Its common name arises from the fact that the tree's stilt roots enable it to slowly shift position, up to 1 meter a year to get more sunlight."

I can "guess" the way in which this plant shifts position, but I think that the article would be much improved by making this explicit. (Please edit the article, don't just discuss here. Thanks.) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Working systematically with common names

Although I've never worked on any of Wikipedia's plant articles (I just do snakes), I am impressed by the knowledable people here. Perhaps it is therefore not a complete coincidence that you've managed to arrange such an impressive naming convention for yourselves, despite the opposition. Defending it is important to me also, because its existence means there is still some hope for WP:NC (fauna). However, during the past seven weeks of endless debate, I can't help but feel that WP:NC (flora) may have been a little less of a target if it were obvious that the people here were also taking common names more seriously. For example, I picked a random plant article, Descurainia pinnata, only to find that the one common name given for it does not even have a redirect: western tansymustard. There's really no need for that, so I'd like to help by making a few suggestions and asking people what they think. It concerns several methods that I've devised for dealing with the many common names (and taxonomic synonyms) that exist for the various species of snakes.

1.) Almost all of the articles I work on have scientific names for their titles. This sometimes makes me feel a bit like a rebel when I consider of WP:NC (fauna), but I like to think that part of the reason I've managed to get away with it for so long is that I've put so much work into the common names as well: creating redirects and disambiguation pages for them all and then categorizing them for easy access. For example, these are categories for pitvipers:

• Crotalinae
• Crotalinae by common name
• Crotalinae by taxonomic synonyms

The first contains mostly articles, while the other two are only for redirects and disambiguation pages. Each article includes a "See also" section with several entries in it, including links for the last two of these three categories. Because they are categories, they are also dynamic and not as susceptible to vandalism.

2.) Until relatively recently I would add category tags to all {{Disambig}} pages pages that included snake entries, such as Copperhead. I did this not only to include these pages in the appropriate common name categories, but it was also a way for me to keep track of them. So, when I was told that I was no longer allowed to do this I was upset. But, as soon as I realized that simply being upset wasn't going to get me anywhere, I decided to look into the only advice I was given: use set index articles. They turned out to be rather interesting. Not only did I manage to devise a workaround to keep track of pages such as "Copperhead" (see Category:Set indices on snakes), but {{SIA}} pages can become much more than regular disambiguation pages. The best examples of this are Anaconda and Cobra: problem pages for which I previously had no good solutions.

3.) Wikipedians seem to love making lists of all kinds of names, but I've always hated the way they deal with common names in articles on biological taxa: just by mentioning them somewhere in the lead section (see WP:LEAD). If there are many names mentioned in the literature, why don't we list them all? If there are none, why don't we say so? And shouldn't they be displayed so they can be more easily found? I wanted something different that would be systematic, predictable, catch the eye, accommodate any reasonable number of names and treat them all as equally as possible.

After some experimentation, I figured the solution would be to list a few names on a single line above the lead and any others below in a section called "Common names". Here are some examples:

• No common names: Brachyophidium, Bothriopsis peruviana
• One common name: Bitis parviocula, Gongylophis colubrinus
• Few common names: Python reticulatus, Typhlops monensis
• Many common names: Agkistrodon piscivorus, Vipera berus

Despite being a little different, some of these articles, such as the last two, have GA status, so the format is already considered acceptable to some degree. Nevertheless, I've never been completely happy with the current format. I think the best thing about it is the concept; the way it looks can likely be improved.

In general, I figure that being so thorough and systematic with common names also has some advantages: 1.) it increases the chances that readers here will find their way to your articles, 2.) it helps to demonstrate just how confusing the situation with common names really is, 3.) it shows that you take the issue seriously as opposed to ignoring it because you can hide behind WP:NC (flora), and 4.) it may also help articles to get a higher Google ranking when people search for a common name only.

So, what do you think? See anything useful? --Jwinius (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A few comments, most importantly, we take common names so seriously we lost one of our very best editors over a battle about common names.

Common names should be made redirects to the article, and should be bolded in the lead section in the article. We do this. Interesting common names are discussed in the articles. All of this is ideal. I create redirects from common names for articles I create, articles other editors create, and articles I stumble across without them. The Australian editors create redirects from common names for articles they write.

Systematically approaching common names might be useful. However, I don't quite follow all of the technical details of your proposal. Plant articles are supposed to have the common names in bold, already, with redirects. There's a never ending battle about the order of common names which is somewhat related to the relentless crusading against our policies we have to put up with every year or so by another editor who doesn't listen and doesn't like the way we do things, this being that there is no systematic approach in the literature to plant common names.

We can't really add the information that there are no common names for the same reason as the battles will continue to arise: we don't know if there are no common names, even if they're not mentioned in the literature. --KP Botany (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

PS I just created the redirect you mentioned above. The editor who created this article creates stubs from three websites about California plants. I systematically create the redirects from all of his/her articles. As it's only me creating the redirect, they take time. In this case, your example is not of an article where there was no care for creating the redirect, it simply hadn't been created yet. With stubs, people do different parts. This editor is creating the taxoboxes and including the common names. I'm creating the redirects. --KP Botany (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

While we may appear organized, I assure you that we're not completely. We get dozens of new articles added to the project daily, many authored by editors not at all connected to this project, so it's difficult to lay out any pronouncements of style. The sheer size and scope of the project add to that difficulty, which is why it's so easy to find a plant article with a missing common name redirect. On point 1, some of us already do this and I of course support it (see Category:Banksia taxa by common name, Category:Utricularia species by common name, Category:Stylidium species by common name). I haven't considered taxonomic synonym categories just because the amount of taxonomic synonyms for some of the genera I work on is just annoying complex. Do you include just nomenclatural synonyms in your taxonomic synonym categories, or do you also include partial synonyms, illeg. nom., etc.? Again, I think it's easy to ask editors to do this, much more difficult to implement, which should not restrict us from asking. Points to consider: it's rare to get editors who work through entire genera or taxonomic families. I assume most people work on flora that interest them or flora by a particular region, so asking them to create this kind of category structure with only a few entries or maybe just one seems silly. I'm an eventualist too, but there are limits. Not arguing against implementation, just noting a difficulty. I don't know much about point 2, so I don't have anything to say, but I promise to read up on the links you provided. On point 3, I recall seeing this format before and not being entirely satisfied by it. I'd probably not choose to use it on the articles I work with, as I prefer common names be mentioned in context. I get the reason behind the predictability of the location of the common names, but if there are none, one, or two, the lead or a separate section on etymology seems like a better place (maybe more than 4 or 5 common names in the lead gets a little ridiculous). There's got to be a better way to format it, as you note, but I'm drawing a blank. Just some thoughts. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect to "set indexes", that's a pretty obscure piece of wikipedia policy, but there are cases where plant articles might have a use for it. I added the template to Huckleberry. With respect to putting the common names above the lead, I guess maybe that's better than mentioning them in the lead (for a variety of reasons including that it implicitly makes it seem right that there would be only a handful, with the full list later in the article). However, I'm not sure whether it would be more controversial than what we do now, or how it would work if there are also WP:HATNOTEs vying for the same real estate. As for redirects, point taken I guess, although when I'm writing a stub (or even slightly longer article) about some random species I've never heard about before I started doing a bit of research, it can be really hard to know whether a name is used enough or unambiguous enough to go to the effort. To pick your example of "western tansymustard", I believe that is listed in a database somewhere. I don't have a similar confidence that anyone really calls it that (especially if you are talking about people who really mean that species rather than any old tansymustard, any weedy plant from the mustard family, or some other such concept). Not that I'd object to "western tansymustard" as a redirect, either way... Kingdon (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If I had to hazard a guess, it's because most of the species with articles already will tend to have quite a few vernacular names, and it would be a grueling process to disentangle all the variations (hyphens, capitalization, etc) and possible species for any given name, not to mention citing sources for everything. A systematic scheme would certainly help; even recently-discovered narrow endemics seems to pick up a half-dozen "common" names in short order. Stan (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

a grueling process to disentangle all the variations (hyphens, capitalization, etc) You mean like this? Hesperian 01:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you missed a lot. Sea side arrow grass, Sea Side arrowgrass, Sea Side Arrow Grass, Sea Side Arrow grass, Seaside Arrow Grass, Seaside arrow grass, Seaside Arrow-grass .... I do less than you do, Hesperian, unless I find variations listed in a few of my books. It's hard with the compound words in common names for plants, in particular, because they tend not to be systematically compounded. --KP Botany (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. Clearly WP:Plants is much bigger (over 100x as many species) than the snake project, which in many ways has felt like a one-man show for the past few years. That last part is also why I've been able to experiment. Everything I've explained above has ultimately resulted from to my refusal to follow WP:NC (fauna), but wanting to show good faith anyway.
The hatnotes for the common names were initially a response to an early criticism I encountered: that when scientific names are used for article titles it makes "the common name" more difficult to find if it has to be looked for in the introduction. My feeling was (and still is) that the current "bolded common names in the introduction" format was really designed for articles with common-name titles.
I'm happy to see that some of you have also been working with categories for common names. When I started making these, I decided also to make ones for taxonomic synonyms, if only for administrative purposes. I consider redirects for taxonomic synonyms as perhaps an even more important way of preventing others from creating duplicate articles. I got them from a well-known checklist and did not cherry-pick (juniors, seniors and nomen nudums included). Following the current MoS guideline, all of the redirects I've created are essentially in lower case (remember that searches are not case sensitive anyway). Furthermore, I never mention or create redirects for spellings that I've not encountered in the literature first.
Regarding the set index articles, when I started applying {{SIA|snakes}} templates, I also had to create a matching Set indices on snakes category. Seeing as WP:Plants is such a large project and so many of the common names apply to different species, you'll probably want to create separate SIA categories for a number of higher-level taxonomic groups (instead of just for "Plants"). However, remember that even though SIAs allow you to add lots more information to a page, they are basically still disambiguation pages, hence the list of links near the top of both Anaconda and Cobra. --Jwinius (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A few responses:

1. The SIA information is very interesting and useful. I have often wished to create such articles but been unwilling or unable to conform them to the disambiguation standard. Mallee is a good example: what is missing from that page is an explication of how all these Mallee-named topics tie together; but you can't put that stuff in a disambiguation page.
2. I think the best thing about using SIAs for common names is the opportunity to offer a shared etymology for a name. For example, the common name spearwood is generally applied to plants that are or were used by the indigenous peoples of an area in the manufacture of spears. Naturally the species used varies from place to place, so there is no taxonomic basis for the name. But you can be sure of one thing: any plant given this common name has long straight thin branches.
3. I'm intrigued by your claim that you create redirects for nomen nudums. If you knew what species to redirect a nomen nudum to, it wouldn't be a nomen nudum, right?
4. Although search is case insensitive, article links are not. So Western Tiger Snake may be a redlink even if you create a redirect from western tiger snake.

Hesperian 13:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nomina nuda are thus because they aren't validly published (or "available", as they say in the ICZN), but some of them are routinely applied to specific taxa. This is especially common in some groups of cultivated plants, where "garden names" never get published. A nomen nudum is for all intents and purposes a common name, with all the issues of precision and ambiguity, except that it happens to be latinate.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

like Thalictrum minus L. var. adiantifolium Hort. ? Hardyplants (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation, Curtis. The only nomen nudums that I've added and created redirects for are those mentioned in the sources I've used. As for maintaining lower case redirects, it's true that the upper case names won't link through them, but I think it's unreasonable to expect that we make all these variations just to accommodate others who might be too lazy to check what they want to link to in advance. --Jwinius (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look closely before, but it seems that the set index articles are the generalization of the ship index articles I had a hand in creating years ago. :-) They would be very handy, especially if not all the species articles exist, plus they would be a bit of a deterrent to ill-advised moves; harder to justify moving over an index article than over a redirect. On the subject of effort level, collecting all the common names of a species seems like a big job; it might be easier to go and collect batches from one reference at a time - all Oenothera common names in Jepson for instance. Hmmm, auto-generation of name variants, paste into mega-todo-lists? Stan (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, can't believe I just read this discussion now. I don't normally do plant articles, but I've collborated with Jwinius over a few snake articles and wholeheartedly agree with most of the suggestions. Now if only the WP:NC (fauna) were as scientifically-minded as you guys. Very impressed with how you guys mostly have stuck to the scientific names for article names (as I believe should be so). Shrumster (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Except we're not really doing it out of science, there simply is no other way to do it with plants. They look and seem to be just like animals to some other editors, it appears, but plants are not animals, and have not been since the dawn of oxygen, and because plants are not animals, humans have always treated them differently from animals. We're stuck with the latinate binomials or spend the rest of the life of Wikipedia arguing about which common name to use when there is one, as if there ever is one. I like the way the birders use standardized common names out of the country of origin for some bird articles, sometimes. --KP Botany (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and I hate arguments like Cougar vs. Puma, Amur Tiger vs. Siberian Tiger, Australian Green Tree Frog vs. White's Tree Frog (note the capitalization). What's wrong with wanting to be systematic and precise? If WP:NC (fauna) were to be reformed, then maybe more zoologists out there would start helping out as opposed to just rolling their eyes and laughing at us. As far as I can tell, this whole common-naming issue for natural history articles got started because the folks who were here during Wikipedia's first year figured that, at the time, external search engine hits were more important than internal precision. But, hits aren't so important anymore: Wikipedia is now a raving success and has no competition to speak of. If we have an article on a subject it almost always appears at, or very near, the top of Google's search results. This is true even if the article has a scientific-name title with common names mentioned in the text. For that matter, I wonder how many people just skip Google and go straight to Wikipedia for many of their searches (I know I do).

Unfortunately, it seems to me that as time went by we managed to lose sight of the original rationale for using common-name article titles and now find ourselves in a situation where we are maintaining them for their own sake. It's become a kind of pseudo-religion: a subject that people defend vigorously, yet cannot defend rationally. Consequently, we also have zealots like PBS and B2c: policy wonks who see themselves as defenders of the faith and spend much of their time making other people's lives miserable.

At best, common-name article titles have served their purpose but are no longer in our best interest. Wikipedia is a huge project already, but if we are ever to come close to living up to Jimbo's aspirations for it, then the fauna people are going to need a naming convention that scales just as well as your's does. Otherwise I don't see how Wikipedia is ever going to make it to the next level.

You seem to forget why fauna people like myself are so impressed with WP:NC (flora): we see it as a sign that there is hope for us. But, remember that as long as WP:NC (fauna) is not the same, the zealots will be using it as their example to beat you over the head with. To them, the differences that you see between flora and fauna will never be clear, so they will never go away. Therefore, if you want peace and sanity and precision as much as I do, it would make sense for you and your friends to support us to eventually have WP:NC (fauna) reformed. Besides, it's because we have so much in common that it's easy for me and my friends to defend WP:NC (flora). Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should, but when we're routinely and frequently attacked by relentless zealots who don't listen but merely batter us with their points not made over and over again, we can't even write plant articles, much less support better and usable structure in animal articles. See, even the zoo has to come over here to defend us from the crusaders. --KP Botany (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My latest position (which changes periodically) regarding this particular ongoing issue is that if they behave like trolls (even though they may not actually be trolls), then the best strategy is to starve them. As Stan said recently, "At this point no one could claim that lack of further response constitutes acquiescence." --Jwinius (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but they will. So it's time to stop listening, and start simply reverting. That is, after all, the equivalent of someone coming to policy pages, demanding they be changed, and ignoring every reason for not changing them, while edit warring all over Wikipedia, relentlessly, over the same single-minded policy change without consensus. --KP Botany (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

KP, I'm not sure what you mean by routinely and frequently... It had been quiet for about two years until Dec. 1, or are you referring to other enormous, endless discussions? I'd certainly support the fauna folks as much as possible. I've written only a handful of zoological articles and find myself a little lost in that realm when I do venture over. I really appreciate all the comments Jwinius and others have made on the our behalf in the flora convention discussion. --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, it has never sounded any different. How can you be so sure about the timespan since the last time? Jwinius has made some excellent comments, and, unlike PBS, has obviously researched the situation. I'm tired of having my time wasted by trolls who aren't listening, never intended to listen, are trying to slam down policy changes they admit won't work, and are simply doing this to get their way over consensus. Their way or no way. And, the trolls have won: we're here dealing with them, not writing plant articles. PBS is not listening, so, yes, he should be ignored, as he is ignoring all others, and his non-consensus edits of policy pages should be simply reverted. It seems this is a common enough thread all over Wikipedia, single-minded editors who disrupt rather than edit. Plants, as far as it seems to me, get more than their fair share. --KP Botany (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, it all comes down to what the most commonly used name is. With respect to flora, there is a core group of people—i.e. botanists, horticulturists—who invariably use scientific names. These are people who are interested in plants in general, rather than a particular type of plant, so no matter what plant you are dealing with, you can assume the existence of a core group who prefer to call it by its scientific name. Thus the scientific name is the most common name so long as there is not much interest in the plant outside that core group. On the other hand, it won't be the most common name if that core group is swamped by some other group or groups who prefer some other name. For example, with respect to culinary plants, the core group is swamped by the chefs, cooks and gardeners who call these plants by their culinary names.

With respect to fauna, then, one must ask: firstly, what does the core group call it? and secondly, is it swamped? Unlike flora, it is not always the case that the core group prefers scientific names. For example, I think it has been established that ornithologists prefer official common names for birds, rather than scientific names. And I think things may be heading in that direction for all tetrapods. On top of that, I think swamping of the core group is far more extensive in the case of fauna than it is for flora. For example there is surely a core group of zoologists who refer to dogs as Canis lupus familiaris, but the extent of swamping by people who prefer "dog" vastly exceeds anything we ever see in the plant kingdom.

Hesperian 04:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This core group of botanists is very well organized and quite dominant within its domain. You've managed to make use of many good arguments to establish the sanest naming convention that Wikipedia has -- a beacon of hope for many other natural history editors. The rest of us, unfortunately, are not as well organized: we cover the other 80+% of the natural world's known species, but we're all split up into little groups and rarely interreact. Nevertheless, I know that there are others like me who are also dissatisfied with the status quo. We don't try to change that because we either are swamped, were once swamped and don't care to repeat the experience, or just assume we would be swamped.

When I say that I'd like to see WP:NC (fauna) reformed (eventually), I know I'm being optimistic. Perhaps I continue to defend the idea simply because I don't want to let it die. If our ideas are ever to prevail, we would need to be better organized. To start things off, I think a hundred of us would be necessary, perhaps less. The arguments are in our favor and so is the fact that we're not a democracy. An initial essay might be a good idea too. --Jwinius (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It may seem like we're well organized, but we're not. We all simply have enough experience researching in plants to know what the reality of the situation is with plant common names. As PBS admits, there is no reliable verifiable source for the most commonly used name in English for plants. We know this, because we work with plants. He knows it even though he doesn't work with plants. So, we use a functional policy instead of trying to force editors to write articles in a way that turns them off by making it impossible for them to write articles.  ::Also, if someone is working on something, I'd rather help them to make Wikipedia better, rather than hinder them. The other editors correct my stiff prose and format my pictures. I add references, make redirects from common names, and research plants in South American Indian languages.

We're here to write articles. --KP Botany (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

PS I don't edit fauna articles, or seldom do anything outside of bovines and whales, so I'm not sure about how bad the problem is there. I should point out though, that I'm a die-hard fan of common names and would support their use and a workable policy for their use for plants on Wikipedia if it could be done, so I'm not really the person to be looking to for support for changing the policy at fauna. I see other editors' points about the difficulties, but I also see that the birders worked it out no better or worse than in the technical literature, as far as I can see, and if it were doable, I would say go for it. If it's not doable, and really needs to be changed, well.... I got that way every once in a while, after having this discussion at plants, but, really, I like article common names for animals, because it can, with some animals, be done. There are some reliable, verifiable, references for agreed-upon animal common names. Polish Wikipedia and German Wikipedia use common names for plants, but they do have standardized common names (not the same thing as most commonly used, but doable). Still, the Polish Wikipedia links to our scientific name articles, not to our common name articles. --KP Botany (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just stopping by to express my appreciation to WP:NC (flora) and the general principle of using scientific names for article entries. I'm at best an amateur botanist with just one flora-related article (Scoliopus) under my belt. But writing that entry was instructive, and I recommend it for anyone who thinks common names will do. Wikipedia articles require notable secondary sources, and I found mine at the Falconer Biology Library at Stanford University. As I searched through books in the North American flora section, it was "Scoliopus", not "Fetid Adder's Tongue", that kept coming up in the literature. The botanical name was how I knew I was, in fact, researching the plant I thought I was researching. And how I knew for certain there wasn't a Wikipedia entry already written. Yes, botanical names can be hard to pronounce. Yes, "Scoliopus" doesn't have the earthy ring of "Fetid Adder's Tongue". But if we are going to have amateurs like me researching and writing botany articles, the scientific name is indispensable. Barte (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Really nice little article you wrote, and you selected an excellent assortment of botanical sources for this plant. This is an interesting little plant to bring up about common names, as I know it only by its common name, yet it's well known in the botanical literature by its scientific name. I don't think I would have known its scientific name without looking it up, but it would be almost mandatory to have the genus to look up accurate botanical descriptions of the plant. I looked at the article at the stage of your last major entry, and you really did a great job. Please, next time skip the discussion on common names and write another excellent article on a plant. Also, nominate it for did you know the next time also! --KP Botany (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Belated thanks for your kind words. I'll write another when I get the time and an opportunity to research it. Barte (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This brings up a good point, if we were to switch to "common names" as the title of a page and despairage the use of the scientific name, we are very likely to have many different articles on the same plant duplicated acroos Wikipedia, because new and old contributers alike are lily to note a "common name" that does not have an article and write one. Hardyplants (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And since common names are unregulated and essentially infinite in number, the only way to prevent duplication for sure is to always use scientific names for article titles and to create redirects for all of the taxonomic synonyms and for as many common names as are known. Consider this once more:

1. Category:Crotalus (valid scientific names) - 54 articles, 13 redirects, 1 list.
2. Category:Crotalus by common name - 203 redirects, 28 disambiguation pages.
3. Category:Crotalus by taxonomic synonyms - 171 redirects, 5 disambiguation pages.

This is arguably the best organization of articles and names that is possible at Wikipedia. It's logical and scales really well. So, why isn't this approach used more often? Because, it only works when the articles are at their valid scientific names.

Suppose that all of these articles were to be moved to common names. In effect, they would all be moved from the first category to the second. Aside from a single list, the first category would then consists only of redirects, while in the second category only one in every four entries would be an article. "Only one in four?! That's stupid!" Indeed, and subsequently someone would suggest that the categories be reorganized, after which the current organization would be lost, compromised or at least permanently degraded.

Is it just me, or would this also seem tragic to anyone else here? --Jwinius (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I like common names. Yes, there are just too many reasons for not using common names for articles, and apparently, Wikipedia editors who know nothing about the long history of scientific names are going to force editors to come up with every one of them rather than writing articles. As I said, it's an anti-scientist crusade, like the best of what the anti-Darwin group has done: engaged scientists in anything besides doing their work. --KP Botany (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that es-wiki is pioneering the science and proper information on wiki and have decided to use sci names to all animals and plants? Go on and look for "perro" there. You will be redirected to "Canis lupus familiaris", isn't that a dream that came true? Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's great news! Fantastic!! Good for them! Good for all the Spanish-speaking people of the world! This almost makes me want to learn Spanish and move to Spain! Hopefully, other European language wikis will catch on and do the same. If the English wiki still refuses to see the light by the time the Dutch wiki catches on, then I'm outta here! Can you tell us anything about how well they're getting along with the current naming convention? Do the people there still seem to be happy with it? Actually, when did they make this decision? Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was a painful proccess as it has been in all other wikis. I have been following this in some wikis and all editors of this sort of article have issues with the common names. People who are familiar with the subject are sistematicaly in favor of sci names addoption, ocasional readers and trolls, against them. As we all know the problems involved with common names I'll skip this part. You may read the ending of it and their new policies here. Well, after they implemented the new rules and started using sci names, things calmed down because reasonable people who are interested in learnig about the species they look for will soon understand why they are under sci names. Some cases still come up now and then regarding some very popular names, but ordinaryly these people are redirected to read the discussion and just accept it as the best for all. They are doing quite well. BTW I wanted do ask you if I can translate the excelent reasoning you have on your user page to Portuguese. It will be very helpfull here on pt-wiki when we finally decide to make this rules official. So far we are unofficially using most of sci names and just revert to common when there are some passionate discussion. We intend to start (again) the discussion here just after you finish yours. And I guess this will not take much to happen as it seems consensus has been reached on that other discussion (not taking into account 2 people who just want to helplessly argue). Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So the ride was a little bumpy at first, but now things are going as I always expected: people understand, accept and move on, grateful that the information is available and can still easily be found. To me, this all seems like music. Sure, you're welcome to translate the stuff on my user page; it's not as eloquent as what some of the people here are capable of producing, but if you think it will help then I'm the last person on Earth who would want to stop you. I'll also see if I can find some time to update it a little. Good luck! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, more excellent news from France: their Botany project here states 5 rules for naming articles that tranlating and making short are: 1 - Sci names are prefered as titles for Botanic species articles; 2 - Cases where there are regulated non-ambiguous French names, they may be used; local and regional names are not to be used; 3 - If you decide to use a French name for the article provide always a good and reliable reference for that, and for every other common name quoted on the article, to avoid translating and abuse of common names. 4 - Make all redirects necessary to main articles; 5- Genera and family articles must always have sci names as titles. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, from Italy: In it.wiki it is been decided to adopt, as general use, the scientific name (latin name) as the title of articles and common names in Italian as redirects. Check it out here. Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Italicized page titles

Am I seeing things or has something changed? The article titles of Protarum and Levenhookia appear to be italicized to me without the displaytitle magic word being used. Anyone else see this or know what's up? --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

See Template talk:Taxobox name. Hesperian 03:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I missed that. I suppose it's taking a while to roll through. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Misidentified Asclepias?

• 
  Asclepias erosa
  (confirmed by comparison with external sources)
• 
  "Calotropis procera" (?!)
• 
  "Asclepias erosa" (?!) same picture with enlargement of the flowers.

The second one is the one actually used in the article, but is starkly different from all the other pictures in the Commons image gallery. Circeus (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Its the wrong species ID, note the leaf shape and number of flowers per umbel. On many of the Milkweeds you can not make ID by the flower color, as it can be variable (though A. erosa seems typically greenish yellow). I will see if I can find the right ID. I had a key for the North American species around here somewhere I thought, but its location is alluding me. Hardyplants (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The flower shape looks more like a Hoya than an Asclepias. Well I have failed to find the right species, it definitely not Asclepias erosa. The flower shape is distinctive and different that most milkweeds, also note that the leaves are paired and almost clasping around the stem, the leaves are cordate shaped, and widest at the middle or toward the end. (Most North American milkweeds have long thin leaves or are widest below the midpoint). Hardyplants (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jepson allows the leaves to be ovate and not clasping, and some of the pics at Calphotos show quite a bit of variability in leaf shape, so I wasn't confident in saying it was not A. erosa. Looking at the pic again it reminds me of an Asclepias species I photographed growing wild on Mount Hamilton above San Jose, which I haven't tried to ID yet. Stan (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is a lot of variation in those characters; the flower morphology is all wrong, I am posting an enlargement of the flowers, the horns are to small. I like "milkweeds" and would love to have a good ID of it, and some seeds too, but I am confident its not "Asclepias erosa" Hardyplants (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much (ok, I don't know anything) about how the genera in the former Ascepli(ad)aceae are delineated, but this triggered my search image for Calotropis procera

• 
  Calotropis procera
• 
  Enlargement from above

As I said, I don't know how genera are delineated, but the (sepals?/petals?) of Asclepias in my experience are bent backwards (as they are in the true Asclepias erosa, above), while in both of these images the same structure appears to lie flat. On the other hand, I only really know Asclepias curassavica and Calotropis procera well enough, and I have very little sense of the diversity in either taxon.

On a side note, the Calotropis procera article is currently at Apple of Sodom, and the current article is mostly about the species in literary contexts (Josephus, Milton, etc.) Aside from the obvious problem of references to support a connection between the plant and the name, is this a case where there should be two articles, one at each name? (Note that Calotropis procera is also important as an invasive). Guettarda (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bravo...well done!! Guettarda, you got it.[11] Hardyplants (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Another ID

New Holland Honeyeater

Little Wattlebird

Just wondering what this bird was feeding on? The flowers seen were at the end of a long (~1.5m) stalk. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The flowers of Phormium tenax. Nice picture. Melburnian (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice picture. Shoot more pictures of pollinators on plants, please. --KP Botany (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Attached is another one I took today (Little Wattlebird), also technically a honeyeater (so I'd assume its a pollinator, there seems to be pollen on its head again). I think its on a Corymbia ficifolia but not 100% certain, a confirmation would be nice. I also have an image of a Silvereye on a Cestrum if that is of any use. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear to be Corymbia ficifolia. Melburnian (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

'Tis. Hesperian 11:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever else it is you do on Wikipedia, Noodle snacks, please stop it and do nothing else but shoot pictures of birds on plants and upload them. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Common names redux

Nothing serious though. While browsing through various online plant lists, I noted this regionalism:

• In British English, adjectives like latifolius are usually translated into common names as "Broad-leaved" or "Broad-Leaved".
• In American English, they are usually rendered as "Broadleaf" or "Broad Leaved".

So it might be possible to expand to the SOP as follows:

• The variants "Small-flowered" and "Smallflower" are to be used over "Small-Flowered" and "Small Flowered".

The BrE choice is, I think, in line with the usual caps rules. The AmE choice of one word vs two is better because e.g. "Broad Leaved" might be understood to mean "broad and with leaves" rather than "with broad leaves". Only difficulty: terms like the translation of parvifolius - but as weird as it might look, Google suggests that triple consonants ("Smallleaf" in this case) have become the norm.

• As per the plant's distribution, names of natively (North) American plants are to use AmE spelling (as it seems, Canada uses AmE too when it comes to English plant names). Names of natively Eurasian/Old World plants are to use BrE spelling. IONO what is usual in Australia and New Zealand; I'd believe the latter uses BrE but I am not sure about the former.

Both variants may be given for widely introduced plants. Natively Holarctic species and similar cases may be handled at the editor's discretion, though it may be advisable to either mention both variants, or to create redirects for both (or all 4) variants.

There are a few cases, it seems, where there is ambiguity. This can be fixed by intelligent use of redirects, hatnotes and in-text annotations. I have found such confusions in Wikipedia plant lists for Geranium maculatum and G. sylvaticum (Wood Geranium/Wood Cranesbill/Woodland Geranium), and Epilobium minutum and E. parviflorum (Smallflower/Small-flowered Willowherb). But it is overall not very common and thus can be handled on a case-by-case basis. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Potentilla arguta

Hey folks. Need some lumpers/splitters help. Potentilla arguta was moved today to Tall Cinquefoil and altered to the splitter interpretation under the genus Drymocallis. Since there are multiple common names for this species, I moved it to the new scientific name professed in the article, Drymocallis arguta. Most references I have or know of still refer to this as a Potentilla. The species was split off in the late 19th century and I guess (?) that placement was widely ignored or disputed until a 2003 study noted the phylogenetics support exclusion from Potentilla, but it doesn't strongly lobby for moving the species. Further confusion abounds from the continued widespread use of Potentilla arguta in databases. There's also a Slovakian article (Soják, J. (2006). Thaiszia – J. Bot. 16:47-50.) from 2006 that might have something to do with this, but I can't find the article in any of my collected journal access databases like JSTOR. Any ideas? I get the feeling that Potentilla is one of those genera you need to approach with the question "s.s. or s.l.?" in mind. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How come there is not ref in the art for the move, this says its a syn [12]; but I do not have time to hunt down and add any more right now. Hardyplants (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I just asked User:Dysmorodrepanis that. I think the info comes from that 2003 phylogenetic study I mention above. That source is used in the sandbox Dysmorodrepanis is using to work on an update to Potentilla (User:Dysmorodrepanis/Sandbox7). I saw the ITIS page, but USDA PLANTS still uses P. arguta (though they're insufferably slow when it comes to taxonomic shifts). I still find recent articles using P. arguta, too: [13]. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply start here and work through Google Scholar starting with systematics papers citing the article. I am presently putting up any species I can find referred on Wikipedia into Potentilla save those that I know to be outside; the page would probably need some exepert attention afterwards as Drymocallis and Argentina have apparently recived a good number of additional spp from Potentilla. As regards the missing subsp. - thx; I know, I just rm'ed the redlink and overlooked that.

(Also, though ITIS is right here, it is generally unreliable. I tend prefer GRIN which indicates when it's inclomplete, if I cannot find a scientific article or a peer-reviewed database <5 years old.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I will have say good by to Potentilla too. Its been a bad year, Lost Aster last spring and now this. The hand writing was on the wall for Potentilla, so I am not shocked that its happened. Hardyplants (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Brace yourself: Vaccinium (at a minimum, the Asian species) is on the chopping block too. As for Potentilla/Drymocallis, I wouldn't lose too much sleep about that one. The (re)classifications of Eriksson(2003) are early enough that I wouldn't feel obligated to use them in wikipedia (the article doesn't cover all species, there are references to as-yet-unpublished data, one article does not establish a consensus, etc), but solid enough that I wouldn't get too bent out of shape if people try to use them. Kingdon (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Either Hibiscus gets chopped, or over a dozen genera (including the 300 species of Pavonia) get swallowed (90+% of Hibisceae is nested in Hibiscus). Fortunately syriacus and rosa-sinensis would stay in Hibiscus. Apart from that Kosteletzkya is polyphyletic. Elsewhere it looks as if Lavatera can't be disentangled from Malva, Sida is polyphyletic, and there's a suspicion that the cultivated shrubby Abutilons are separate from the remainder of the genus. And there are problems with Iliamna. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fun, fun...any of this published yet? Guettarda (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we have a volunteer, when this all breaks ;). I am going to put off stubbing the North American Hibiscus, was thinking of doing them after finishing up Liatris; maybe Iris instead needs some stubbing, that will keep me occupied into summer. Hardyplants (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't expect anyone to do anything major to Hibiscus in the near future. But although Escobar et al refrain from proposing a reclassification there's already been one paper sinking Lavatera in Malva. OTOH, a very recent paper describes a new natural hybrid (or species) in Lavatera (even though it belongs to the subgroup of Lavatera that most recent work has transferred to Malva), so it may be a while before we have a consensus. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Syst. Bot. 27(2): 333-350 (2002), Pfeil et al, Phylogeny of Hibiscus and the Tribe Hibisceae (Malvaceae) Using Chloroplast DNA Sequences of ndhF and the rpl16 Intron
• Mol. Biol. Evol. 21(7): 1428-1437 (2004), Pfeil et al, Paralogy and orthology in the Malvaceae rpb2 gene family: investigation of gene duplication in Hibiscus
• Aust. Syst. Bot. 18: 49-60 (2005), Pfeil & Crisp, What to do with Hibiscus?
• Am. J. Bot. 92(4): 584-602 (2005), Tate et al, Phylogenetic Relationships Within the Tribe Malveae (Malvaceae, subfamily Malvoideae) as Inferred from ITS Sequence Data
• Systematic Botany 33(2): 364–374 (2008), Koopman & Baum, Phylogeny and Biogeography of Tribe Hibisceae (Malvaceae) on Madagascar
• Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 50(2): 225-239 (2009), Escobar et al, Five molecular markers reveal extensive morphological homoplasy and reticulate evolution in the Malva alliance (Malvaceae)

and other, older, papers (and theses). Lavateraguy (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Then let me just say thank god for "nomenclature follows..." :) Guettarda (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am mildly annoyed that the paper more or less explicitly includes Argentina in Potentilla (ut maybe I'm misreading something), while excluding Fragaria. Circeus (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Including Clade J in Potentilla and excluding Clade E (Fig. 4, p. 205) both seem like the more conservative choice. Including Clade E would probably require a major redefinition of Potentilla to find some uniting synapomorphies. On the other hand, since at least some authors include Clade J in Potentilla, it seems conservative to leave it there. Not that I'm a systematist, so I may not be making any sense. Guettarda (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not misreading something (I think); else they would have etablished Argentina peduncularis/A. stenophylla comb. nov. (I cannot find any reference for these). I have kept Argentina out of Potentilla for the time being since it seems a distinct (though very close) lineage. But while support for nodes D and I would be entirely sufficient for me if it were a species-poor bird genus, the many many cinquefoils yet to be studied make me cautious. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That was one of my reasons for not thinking this paper should be taken as gospel. Although Eriksson doesn't recognize Argentina, I'm not sure the paper has enough data to conclude that Argentina is a bad idea. Including Fragaria would affect a lot more genera, including Alchemilla, Aphanes, Sibbaldia, Chamaerhodos, etc., so I have no disagreement with Eriksson's choice to not do it. Kingdon (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bird of paradise

Requested move: Bird of paradise (disambiguation) → Bird of paradise. Please read and contribute to survey here. --Una Smith (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Another editor has filed an opposing requested move: Birds of Paradise → Bird of paradise. In short, this is yet another tedious argument over which of two candidate articles is the primary topic, an argument I propose to end by putting a disambiguation page at the page name that is in contention. See it here. --Una Smith (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Luther Burbank's strains or varieties as urbal legends?

Dear colleagues, please help find last scientific data about numbers of Burbank's strains or varieties. How many from his strains are really use in the beginnings of 1900-, in the middle of XX century (1940-1970), and today?

In long discussions (look Editing Talk:Luther Burbank for an article in ru-wiki proect branch) and on the process for nomination for Good article (look discussions for nomination, in russian) we see such comments as: (many Burbank's strains/varieties) - "urbal legends" or "activity of this doubtful (or litigions) figure" (in russian: "деятельности этой спорной фигуры"). Some doubts were expressed in operations in the article (such as this).

Is it the correct or withstand modern point of view?

Did we really can said today some as though: "Luther Burbank - doubtful figure", and "his 800-1200 strains and varieties - only some kinds of urbal legends"?

Your comment is important for the correct estimation importance of Luther Burbank person, and quality of the Russian article ru:Бёрбанк, Лютер on the process for nomination of one for Good article.

With kind regards, Alexandrov (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This article, cited in the Luther Burbank article, seems to accept the idea.

‘‘Burbank introduced over 200 varieties of fruits alone, consisting of 10 different apples, 16 blackberries, 13 raspberries, 10 strawberries, 35 fruiting cacti, 10 cherries, 2 figs, 4 grapes, 5 nectarines, 8 peaches, 4 pears, 11 plumcots, 11 quinces, 1 almond, 6 chestnuts, 3 walnuts, and 113 plums and prunes’’ (Howard 1945). Altogether, it is estimated that he was responsible for introducing between 800 and 1,000 plants to American horticulture and agriculture.

Guettarda (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! But this is my own text in an article :-)

Unfortunately some colleagues in ru-branch did not satisfied such general reference and require more concrete information on every varieties :-( Alexandrov (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I might suggest you contact the author of the article. His email address is on the article. Guettarda (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Done :-) Alexandrov (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Black pepper for FAR

I have nominated Black pepper for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Author abbreviations

In trying to track down a source for the author abbrev. for Giuseppe Acerbi (not listed in IPNI) I found this result from Harvard. There are two records - one that says "Standard name - G. Acerbi" and the other that says "B & P abbreviation - Acerbi". So I was wondering what "B&P abbreviation" was, and which for we should use in the Giuseppe Acerbi and on the List of botanists by author abbrev. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"B&P" is Brummit and Powell's Authors of Plant Names. I'd go with "Acerbi". The standard lists disambiguate only when there is a single person involved (and not even then in the case of zoology, though the names are not really standardized in zoology). "Standard name" is probably extra disambig added internally: note that it is "standard name", not "author name", so it's possibly the name used for collector, paper author etc. Circeus (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Brummit and Powell. Ahh. Of course. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow wikistats tool

Check out the new tool, Pages with links to disambiguation pages, which reports that List of garden plants ranks 63rd. --Una Smith (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and if you get your way, it will simply become a list of all articles on Wikipedia. More interesting than List of garden plants, and Glossary of botanical terms is number 7: Voivodeship road. --KP Botany (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed a few of these, especially genus names. However you'all might like to arrange to have Carya (genus) moved over Carya. User:Lavateraguy|Lavateraguy]] (talk)

More candidates for moves - Heracleum, Panax, Quercus, Rosa, Zea, Zizania. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow - that Panax dab...between the genus and a character in a Terry Brooks book...really misses the whole "primary topic" idea :) Guettarda (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The primary topic, as measured by a Google web search, may be the character. But as measured by a Google Books search, likely it is the genus. Here WP:PRIMARY is not helpful, because there is no one set of reliable sources, there are at least two, each with its own biases. To me, the primary topic doctrine is the real problem here. --Una Smith (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the wikipedia dab page, there is no mention of the character in the first hundred results on a Google web search. There are a few occurrences which are not the genus - an energy company, some sort of internet service provider (not notable), and a specific epithet (not notable). I'm surprised that the use of ginseng in herbal medicine didn't lead you to expect the genus to dominate a Google web search. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm convinced. And as there are only two entries, reciprocal hatnotes are a good solution. Has anyone checked the incoming links to Panax? --Una Smith (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked the links and the ones that needed fixing. --Una Smith (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And Rosa and Quercus, utterly ridiculous. But this is what Una is advocating all over Wikipedia, that primary topics be dabs to standard usages and minor drummers of now defunct notability-in-question punk bands from rural Arkansas. Some admin please correct the Quercus, Rosa and Panax nonsense. I didn't look at the others, these were too painful. Still, love seeing the Voivodeship roads ranking so high.--KP Botany (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

KP, I don't advocate that, as you say, "primary topics be dabs"; they are two entirely different things. --Una Smith (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes you do, and no they're not according to you and your editing history. Also, usually if someone is wikihounding you it implies you're not discussing issues with them. Your editing history and style is seriously at issue. If you want to change how dabs are created, post and discuss the policy and gain consensus, instead of turning primary topics into dabs unilaterally and posting discussions all over Wikipedia that primary topics be made dabs. As long as you refuse to post a centralized discussion of your proposed policy change, users will have to resort to individually disagreeing with your de facto attempts to change policy wherever you post. You don't want me discussing the policy with you everywhere, then feel free to find one place to discuss it. You could also not discuss it with me to show that you're not discussing it with me, rather than discussing it with me while accusing me of hounding you. It might hold more water the first way. --KP Botany (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

More botanical pages with lots of links to dab pages - List of Euphorbia species and List of plants of Atlantic Forest vegetation of Brazil - but most of the dab pages are for surnames (of authorities for plant names) and many of the relevant botanists don't have articles. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. I'd like to clear that up for some of the major ones. --KP Botany (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Turns out that at wormwood wormwood is relegated to other uses, even though the majority of uses are derived from the plant. Evening primrose looks dodgy as well. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

An older tool lists heavily referenced dab pages, which is perhaps of more interest. It turns out that heather (disambiguation) was moved over heather (a redirect?) last November, leaving a large number of pages referring to Calluna vulgaris wikilinking to the wrong place. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions for organisms

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) is being assaulted for over two months now by two editors, User:Philip Baird Shearer and User:Born2cycle whose intent now seems to be only to disrupt editing. However, their battle is largely about trying to force plant editors to use "the most commonly used name," for plant article titles. While attempting to get the two of them to source precisely where plant editors should find the most commonly used name, I have come to realize that all Wikipedia naming policies for organisms which require the use of common names are destined for failure. It simply cannot be done. All attempts to use the most commonly used name in English for article titles, for all but a few organisms, are ethnocentric, full of original research, and create problems and opportunities for disruption by editors such as PBS and B2c that would not exist at all if Wikipedia simply had a naming convention policy for organisms that required the articles be titled with the scientific name, according to the rules of scientific nomenclature, introduce the most common names in the lead, discuss them early in the article, and create redirects from the common names to the scientific name. --KP Botany (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest this be discussed in full at Wikipedia naming conventions. --KP Botany (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

KP, you object to my wanting Tarpan and Wild horse to be disambiguation pages rather than articles about Equus ferus ferus and Equus ferus. So please tell me: what should be done with common names, if they are not to be used as the page names of articles? It seems to me you would advance your position here by supporting the use of disambiguation pages to, um, disambiguate ambiguous common names. --Una Smith (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I object to you moving articles unilaterally in support of your intention to make every article a dab without discussion this proposal of yours, making every article a dab, with the larger Wikipedia community in order to get consensus. Post your policy proposal and gain consensus for it, before you make one more single dab proposal or unilateral move. Then, I'll be glad to discus the horse dabs with you. Get going on the AN/I, by the way, I reserved space for you to file it. Quercus, by the way, is neither a common name nor an ambiguous scientific name. --KP Botany (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

KP, which policy is it that you suppose I am trying to change? --Una Smith (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So, we're discussing this, or I'm wikihounding you? I think that if you're following me and posting questions to me, it kinda implies you're the one doing the wikihounding, especially if you're now asking me to answer a question about what you accused me of wikihounding you about. Read the claimed wikihounding posts, Una, before you claim you are being wikihounded, because wikihounding is based upon content. --KP Botany (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)