Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

TfD nomination of Template:Botanist-inline2

Template:Botanist-inline2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Hesperian 01:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Vascular plant

Hi, I came across this article yesterday. It's pretty poor at the moment for such an important subject and could do with a lot of work. I've improved what's there but it could probably do with some new sections. Smartse (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Exogen and endogen

Should our ancient and neglected stubs exogen and endogen be redirected to monocot and dicot respectively? Hesperian 12:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Go for it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Somewhere it would be nice to discuss the formation of "wood" in different angiosperm groups (I don't see anything at Dicot#Compared to Monocotyledons for example, although there is a brief discussion at Woody plant). But having little duplicative stubs doesn't make that easier, it makes it harder. Kingdon (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot generating plant stubs

Hello plant people! I've just started diving into the plant realm on Wikipedia. Unlike most of the other areas I've worked in, it looks like Wikipedia is still missing a lot of articles on plants. In fact, this may be the last great frontier on Wikipedia. Regarding that, I wanted to start discussing an idea with you guys. Several other projects on Wikipedia have sponsored bots to flesh out basic stubs on their topic of choice (Polbot for mammals, Rambot for U.S. cities, etc.). For plants in the U.S. there seem to be several sources that would be easy to scrape information from: NatureServe, USDA PLANTS, ITIS, Germplasm Resources Information Network, Native American Ethnobotany Database, etc. Obviously such a project would require a lot of planning and discussion, but I was wondering if you guys would even be open to such an idea. If so, I can start working on a demo project and generate a couple articles for you guys to look at so I can get further feedback. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Polbot also generated ~10,000 articles on plants based on the IUCN database and it took a while to clean up after it. In principle, and if planned out appropriately, I'd support such an initiative. I'm wary of bot-generated content on subjects that require taxonomic classification, though. The USDA PLANTS database, GRIN, ITIS, etc., can be quite out-of-date when it comes to some taxa. The big databases can't keep up with the tiny taxonomic shifts that happen in the literature. Heck, ITIS still lists Trithuria (Hydatella) as a monocot and that shift happened two years ago. Not sure how any bot could compensate for the database's failings, which is why I might be inclined to value our slow pace at adding new articles (not entirely slow, either! On average a dozen or more a day?) over inaccurate bot-generated stubs. Just my initial thoughts, though. --Rkitko ^(talk) 19:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've very familiar with the mess caused by Polbot (I helped in the clean-up efforts at WikiProject Mammals). Most of it could have been avoided if they had just waited a few more months for MSW3 to be published. On the issue of taxonomic accuracy, I think the issue isn't bot-generated vs. non-bot-generated. The issue is which source to use and the timing of when the articles are created. Although I know some plant articles are created by professional botanists with up to the minute taxonomy, the vast majority rely on the taxonomies provided in online databases, accurate or not. I don't think bot-generating more articles is necessarily problematic as long as we do two things:

1. Use the most accurate and up-to-date database(s) for the taxonomic info
2. Make sure we don't run such a bot right before a huge overhaul of the taxonomy (what happened with mammals)

Kaldari (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, we could always choose to limit such a project to individual plant families with well-established taxonomies, or customize which databases are used for the taxonomies of different families. If you had to choose a couple of plant families that have accurate up-to-date info available online, which families would they be and what online sources would you use? Kaldari (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Limited runs might be a good idea at first. I'm really only familiar with a few families and I'm slowly adding their content. I'll think on this, though, or maybe someone else might have a good idea for a family that is represented accurately in a specific database. Personally, I prefer to source my information for stubs from taxonomic monographs and recent publications of individual genera. --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It does raise the question of whether we want a set of stubs, or whether we'd rather create articles. If consensus is that stubs are better, then we should start by encouraging people to create more plant stubs. I'm still a little embarrassed by the raft of Coccothrinax and Copernicia articles I created in 2007. That said, I'm interested in what people think - are stubs better than nothing? Guettarda (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I must confess I've created quite a few stubs myself, mostly because half of the wildflowers that I've photographed had no articles. That's actually what led me to this idea. I realized that I could actually write a program that would produce better quality stubs than the ones I was making by hand. Kaldari (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I obviously have no problem with stubby articles. I like having the framework in place to expand upon. I suppose that makes me an eventualist to some degree. I think stubs are better than nothing. It's not really fair to ask you, Kaldari, to show us an example of such an article if the time spent on generating the program would be too much of an investment unless you knew it was going to be used, but it's hard to know what kind of stub you could generate from these databases unless we see an example. Did you already have something in the works? --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Stubs are fine. I don't like bots writing articles, but stubs are fine. I think that what would have helped would be a complete list of the bot generated articles, and editors could run through them, check for problems. Even if there are a thousand bot generated stubs, editors could run through them quickly and mark which ones might be problems. The polbot articles were only listed by Alex, as far as I remember, so they had to be caught individually. Staying away from scrophs and mints without prior notice might help. --KP Botany (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, the response so far has been encouraging. Please note that I am also very critical of bots creating articles. If it isn't done is a well-planned, well-controlled, and well-monitored way, it can easily create more work than it alleviates. With that in mind I would like to get some suggestions for what would make a good starting point for such a project. Maybe just a single family or genus that is lacking a lot of species articles. If I could then get suggestions on what the best online data sources are for that taxa and what kind of information would be best to include in the article, I could build out the bot, generate a dozen stubs or so and let everyone take a look at them and evaluate the work. I would never be comfortable turning such a bot loose to create thousands of articles at once. What I would prefer is to just do one family or genus at a time so that people can continually review the articles. Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, they don't necessarily have to be "stubs", I'm just imagining that there's only going to be a couple paragraphs worth of info that can easily be scraped from the online databases. I could be wrong though. Kaldari (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of being a cold blanket, I think I'm going to have to oppose on this one. My rationale is that our coverage of plants is decent (plants are not the last frontier, protists are, or perhaps viruses or bacteria), and that bot-generated stubs tend to be a mess. We'd end up with half of the genera in the Plantaginaceae listed under Plantaginaceae and half under Scrophulariaceae (just to pick one of the easy to solve examples). If people don't agree with me, I'd advise at least keeping the run to a thousand or two. I just don't see how we could have any hope of cleaning up 200,000 stubs (one for each plant species). Just changing (whatever the database uses) to eudicot would be a big project. Kingdon (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As someone who's worked on WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles for several years, I'm afraid I must beg to differ with your statement that "our coverage of plants is decent". Our coverage of movies is decent. Our coverage of video games is decent. Our coverage of plants is most definitely not decent. If half of the common American wildflowers that I photograph don't have Wikipedia articles, I can only imagine how sparse our coverage of less popular plants is. The only reason I proposed this idea is that Wikipedia seems to have very poor coverage of plant species. However, I certainly have no intention of creating 200,000 stubs, as I thought was clear from my posts above. Kaldari (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I must say I really don't like bot-generated articles. To me mass-produced standard format articles have a brain-numbing effect. I prefer to see the diversity of articles that we currently have, with differing approaches taken by various authors (within the guidelines). My other concern is that there is a real danger of introducing systemic bias when produced from one particular country's databases. The US databases mentioned above as sources of data contain many plants not native to the US and using them to generate plant articles for these will introduce common names and spelling which are foreign to the region to which that these species are native. For instance the USDA PLANTS database contains the following:

• Atriplex cinerea - gray saltbush (APNI: Grey Saltbush), Coast Saltbush, Bariilla)
• Eucalyptus grandis - grand eucalyptus (WTF?) (APNI: Rose Gum, Flooded Gum, Scrub Gum)
• Corymbia ficifolia - redflower gum (APNI: Red-flowering Gum) Melburnian (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned up a great many of PolBot's miscategorisations this last year. Common errors were: the creation of categories for monotypic genera; creating genus categories as subcategories of family categories that didn't exist; putting species in unrelated categories whose name happens to match the genus; not to mention following outdated taxonomies. On top of that I have seen many erroneous links created, to pages whose title is the name of a taxon, but which is not actually about that taxon; e.g. disambiguation pages. I would be quite annoyed if a bot were to introduce many more such errors for me to clean up... and frankly, I can't think how you would code a bot that would avoid making such errors. Therefore I could only support the proposal for more bot-created articles if it was given a very tight scope, and kept on a very short leash. Specifically, you would need to do the necessary legwork to ensure that the bot is well-informed of the various articles, categories and stub types relevant to its scope; and you would need to manually create in advance whatever new categories the bot will need. Hesperian 01:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Which online database has the most up-to-date angiosperm taxonomy

This is partially related to the thread above, but I would also like to know this for my own personal Wikipedia editing. If I'm putting together a quick wildflower species article (without digging into all the academic journal research), which online database(s) are the most reliable for taxonomic information? Kaldari (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What part of the world and any particular plant families? [1] is often where I start first, but only some of the floras there tell you anything beyond a species list (such as classification, habitats, descriptions, etc). It isn't unusual for me to find the academic journal research much easier to make sense of than someone's incomplete attempt to summarize said research. Your mileage may vary. Kingdon (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

How about the U.S. and Brassicaceae (since our coverage of this family is abysmal)? I tried efloras.org but couldn't find any information for any of the species I looked up. Surely, there has to be something useful besides academic journals. Kaldari (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, taxonomies are pretty much the domain of taxonomists. They are published in taxonomic journals (Taxon for plants), and their information is then used by others, but not necessarily published. Kew may have some taxonomies, and USDA since it's Brassicaceae, but, no academic journals are where taxonomies are published, then monographs on the taxon, then textbooks. Usually for wikipedia you want it used in a secondary source, but that tends to mean systematics articles in academic journals. --KP Botany (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying that no one besides botanists should bother creating plant articles. I could understand your position if we were talking about proper references for featured plant articles, but I'm just talking about stubs (mainly just infoboxes for stubs). Do you really think it is unacceptable to use online databases as taxonomic references for any plant article, no matter how basic? Kaldari (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the USDA taxonomy for Brassicaceae is rather different than the one given in the current Brassicaceae article:

Wikipedia = Plantae: Angiosperms: Eudicots: Rosids: Brassicales: Brassicaceae

USDA = Plantae: Tracheobionta: Spermatophyta: Magnoliophyta: Magnoliopsida: Dilleniidae: Capparales: Brassicaceae

Which of these taxonomies would be better to use for infoboxes on Brassicaceae species articles (or should I use something else entirely)? Kaldari (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(Adding a note here - the USDA PLANTS database uses the Cronquist system. Melburnian (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

I didn't say anything about who should write plant articles, particularly I did not say only botanists should write plant articles. I said what literature should be used, imo, for the most up to date taxonomic information. Although, I also pointed out that's not the same information to be used by wikipedia. So, I think it was a bit much tying that into saying I seem to be saying who should write plant articles.

The technical literature is not a closed domain available only to botanists, by the way. Anyone can read it. The American Journal of Botany has most of its issues on-line, all except the latest, for ease of searching and accessing without a subscription.

I did not say that it was unacceptable to use online databases as taxonomic references for plant articles, either. Again, you asked about "most reliable on-line database for taxonomic information," and I pointed out that specifically most reliable taxonomic information is not in the domain of on-line databases, it's through the technical literature that has already been used by other scientists in peer reviewed journals.

Wikipedia taxoboxes uses APG II when updated. I would use the current en.wikipedia one, if it's APG II. Also, we don't use all levels on taxoboxes. However, if your concern is only the taxobox, pick one, mention which one you used in the edit summary and someone may change it or leave it. For genus and species, copy the upper level ranks from the family, leaving you with little additional research. --KP Botany (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• The only difference between the two classifications you give which is a big deal is Capparales versus Brassicales, and is discussed in the sentence "Brassicales sensu APG II includes families classified under Capparales in previous classifications" at Brassicales. If you want to learn all about this (and the other terms like rosid, Spermatophyta, etc), most of the answers are in wikipedia or the sources which it links to, but if you just want to write some species articles, I won't worry about it too much. You can generally just copy the taxobox from a related plant and you won't be too far off (for example, the taxobox at Capsella, with the obvious modifications, should work for any genus/species in the Brassicaceae). There's also plenty of taxonomy expertise in this wikiproject, so feel free to ask. As for the Brassicaceae at efloras.org, that family isn't in Flora of North America yet, but according to the schedule, it should be available soon (if all goes well). There is Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, and Surrounding Areas by Alan S. Weakley, but actually for many purposes you probably don't need anything that technical. Works like Wild Flowers Worth Knowing, Fire Effects Information System and various wild flower web sites might be more what you need to write a good article. Kingdon (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the useful information. Not to be antagonistic, but it was a bit like squeezing blood from a stone :) Maybe I just wasn't asking the right questions, though. As I'm sure that I will not be the last person to come to WikiProject Plants wanting guidance on how to best write a "casual" plant article (or stub), I would suggest that you guys add this information to your permanent project pages. For example, there should be a prominent section of your project site devoted exclusively to taxonomy. Many other Tree of Life Projects have such a section and they go a long way to keeping the taxonomies relatively consistent. In this section it should say "For angiosperm taxoboxes, we generally use APG II, although exceptions may be made if more recent information is available." Right now you guys do mention APG on your resources page, but it doesn't explain that this is the de facto standard for angiosperm taxonomy on wikipedia, and the link doesn't even work. Kaldari (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added that wording, and expanded the US section of the resources page. Kingdon (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(re Kaldari) bit like squeezing blood from a stone - the problem is that you asked a question that doesn't have an answer. There are lists for some groups and for some regions, but there's no complete list, and what lists that exist are not necessarily consistent (for example AFPD (and the African literature in general) unites Microcos with Grewia while Flora of China (and the Asian literature in general) separates the two groups). I could probably dig up another dozen nomenclatural and taxonomic problems in Malvaceae s.l. in short order.

(re Kingdon) the existence of Dillenidae in one of the classifications is a big deal - Dillenidae has turned out to be an artificial group. A less significant point is that K&B (for example) use Capparales for the clade that APG denote as Brassicales. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I painted with a brush which was a bit too broad there (another such difference is the replacement of the paraphyletic Magnoliopsida with the monophyletic eudicots). I was closer to the mark when I said someone can write a wildflower article without worrying (much) about this. Kingdon (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Capriopholis

Anyone want to take a look at Capriopholis before I WP:PROD it as a hoax? Kingdon (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's hoax. At the very least, it can't be verified and should be deleted immediately. If no one objects, I or one of the other admins can take care of it quickly. --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Melburnian (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

How boorish of you, others may have wanted to see the joke. Was it a good hoax? Now I'll never know. Oh, wait, google cached pages, the tool to not having to bother to ask an admin to give you a deleted page. Wow, google returns a lot of hits for hoax. How long has this been up? --KP Botany (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The article was created on 30 September 2008, and linked from Orobanchaceae on 1 April 2009. Melburnian (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's bad. Thx. --KP Botany (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the hoaxer. They haven't contributed since June, so probably there was little point in doing so. But at least this way we will know if they return, and can keep a close eye on them. Subtle hoaxes are the worst kind of vandalism. Hesperian 01:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to go through PROD based on "Note that hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates" at Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes. But I suppose Wikipedia:SNOW applies as I have little doubt it would have been deleted whatever the process ended up being. Kingdon (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

synonym skeptinym

I expanded Basellaceae. While expanding the family article, it seemed natural (but not easy) to expand Basella and Basella alba at the same time and I did that also. That being stated, by the time I was working on Basella alba, it became clear to me that it is only recently that this species is being considered a synonym of Basella rubra which is the type species for the genus/family. Most descriptions of these species were separate -- granted, most descriptions of this species were not from this century or, even the last century; however, the declaring that one is a synonym of the other seems to be extremely recent.... Now, my cynicism: if the papers that use Basella alba to make and verify their claims for the family were not paywalled (a word I found here, thank you for that) I think I could have found that the reason for the synonymation of Basella rubra had to do with some study that needed Basella alba to be the type species.

Perhaps I was looking at this stuff and those paywalls for too long, but then I read the note on MMNPD about it.

I have implicated many questions here, but I ask only this one. Who is stopping me from splitting Basella rubra from Basella alba and why? -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 05:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules, just report the facts, no original research, that's all. Publish elsewhere, then, after it is mentioned in a secondary source or used generally it can be reported her. Maybe someone can check these out and verify? --KP Botany (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

PS Very well written article on the family, by the way. Thanks! --KP Botany (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That is actually the reason that I did not (at the time) make an article for Basella rubra. It would be a nicer article if the literature that they use to support their claims for defining the family were available to be read by everyone. -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See Novon 9(4): 561-562 (1999). The synomymisation turns out to be ancient - see Roxburgh, Flora Indica 2: 104 (1832). I don't have an explanation as to why Basella alba is used instead of Basella rubra.

Note: Basellaceae has 3 different dates for the recognition of the family (1836, 1837 and 1840). I expect that Rafinesque's Basellides (corrected to Basellaceae in modern usage) qualifies as publishing the name. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Novon article was such a great example for what is the typification process and reading it really improved the references in the article. It is kind of cool that this new century has made the technology and resources available to collect the history of these things -- at least it seems cool to me. Only a few things are missing now for the article about the history of this species up to World War II and the one that bothers me the most is where they determined Basella japonica Burm.f. to be a synonym for Basella alba also. Such public domain fun! -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Novon article, then it would be open access fun, not public domain fun. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Difference noted. The fun I had, however, was when the article pointed at PD documents and I actually spent more time trying to find and beginning to understand where PD falls off at the other end of the time extremes when I was trying to figure out what publication "Hermann herb." was the abbreviation for. It was nice to end up finding the information I needed here. And some "publications" are rightfully not PD or open access. Oh, and that article did point at documents which were not PD and not with open access and in my albeit brief experience with them, not fun. -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oca vs Ulluco

I see that both of these are second to the potato as root crops in the Andean region. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Gardenia

I would add a section on how to grow Gardenias as house plants, which is very difficult.

According to Reader's Digest's Success with Houseplants, 1987, they need a sunny window, and a lot of humidity. The pot should be sitting on a tray of pebbles filled with water and the plant should be sprayed at least twice a day. When the plant is blooming, don't let the water fall on the blooms or they will turn brown. The soil should be a proprietary mix of one appropriate for lime-hating plants. Alternatively, one can use half peat moss and half leaf mold; however, this is not as nutritious. Fertilize once a month between March and November, using a lime-hating fertilizer. Prune in the spring to keep the plant bushy. --Julcal (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)julcal

Go ahead and add it (in your own words), although as there are 250 species in the genus Gardenia, it would be be best to determine which species the book is referring to (Gardenia jasminoides?) and add it to that article. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a how-to manual and information should be descriptive rather than given as set of instructions. Also, it's advisable to leave out information on months as this will vary depending on region.Melburnian (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A hint on avoiding having your work pruned for violating the 'how-to' prohibition: don't use terminology such as "fertilize once a month", "prune in the spring", "don't let the water fall on the blooms", etc. These are all advising people "how to" take care of the plant. By my understanding, you can write a description of cultural points such as "water on the blossoms will cause them to turn brown", "they prefer soil that is....", etc. This may sound like it's bending the rules, but in fact the 'how-to' prohibition states that "a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions" (emphasis is mine). First Light (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Häpe

I was wondering if someone could tell me what the English word is for this tool. I know it's either for gardening or winemaking, or both. Link: http://www.feiner.at/grafiken/f_grafik/120_g.gif

Sickle.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bill hook. --Una Smith (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Billhook-- that's it. Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Julcal (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)julcal

Dipsacus

Are Dipsacus fullonum and Dipsacus sylvestris synonyms or not? Colchicum (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that without the "authority" mentioned on those articles that the best answer to that question is a decisive "yes or no". Heh. Just a real quick look at a not very reliable place and it seems that Dipsacus fullonum Thore is a synonym of Dipsacus sylvestris Lam. but not of Dipsacus sylvestris Huds. or of Dipsacus sylvestris Mill.; and that is just one combination.... -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Dipsacus sylvestris Huds. is commonly cited as a synonym of Dipscaus fullonum. As this was published earlier than either Miller's or Lamarck's names, it is the only valid instance of this combination; the others would be isonyms or later homonyms. Dipsacus sylvestris does seem to be a synonym of Dipsacus fullonum, but there seems to be a body of opinion that Dipsacus sativus is a separate species, and I find it plausible that the Dipsacus fullonum of some authors (non. L.) is Dipsacus sativus. The Linnaean typification project mentions that rejection of Dipsacus fullonum as a nomem ambiguum was proposed, presumably on the grounds that it wasn't clear whether Linneaus was describing fullonum (sylvestris) or sativus. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the proposal to reject the name was not accepted:

In 1753 Linnaeus described D. fullonum with a new diagnosis and included a variety beta based on 'Dipsacus sativus' of Bauhin. In 1763 he actually named the variety as sativus, this being later raised to specific rank by Honckeny 1782 and applying to the cultivated Fullers' Teasel. As convincingly argued by Ferguson and Brizicky (l.c.), and in accordance with what Dr Jarvis believes is the first explicit lectotypification by Willmott (l.c.), it seems clear that the typical element of Linnaeus's D. fullonum is the Wild Teasel. However, in 1762 Hudson applied D. fullonum to the Fullers' Teasel and described the Wild Teasel as D. sylvestris, thus implicitly typifying D. fullonum by the beta variety; this treatment has been followed by some authors, particularly in North America where D. fullonum has usually been applied to the cultivated Fullers' Teasel and D. sylvestris Hudson to the Wild Teasel. Correct application of D. fullonum, in line with Willmott's first formal typification and with Ferguson and Brizicky (L.c.), has probably been as common as the incorrect usage, and is followed in Flora Europaea 1976. It may be noted also that some Floras, such as recent editions of that by Clapham, Tutin and Warburg, have treated both taxa as subspecies of one species under the name D. fullonum, albeit with incorrect subspecific nomenclature. Although some members point to the fact that the name had been rejected as early as 1907 by Schinz and Thellung (l.c.), and later by Mansfeld (l.c.) in 1939 and by the Committee on Stabilization (l.c.), a majority of the Committee feel that it is inap- propriate to apply Art. 69 in this case, and rejection is not recommended. The name D. fullonum should be used for the Wild Teasel. (from Taxon 1986 35:559.

Another site you might like for proposals/disposals that I use nearly every day is this one: [2]. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so how should we deal with this couple of stubs? Colchicum (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been bold, and converted sylvestris to a redirect, with corresponding modifications at Dipsacus and Dipsacus fullonum. We might want to break the information for sativus (currently a redirect) out of Dipsacus. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Davallia

I would like to add material to this page. it only contains a few lines. My information comes from Reader's Digest Success with Plants. the information I add would only be about the plant itself, not how to take care of it. --Julcal (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)julcal

You don't need to ask permission to add material to a page. See WP:BOLD. You should however not add copyrighted material, which in this case means that you should use your own words, and not the Reader's Digest's. You would also be encouraged to cite your source. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

But you should be aware that the material in Reader's Digest's "Success with Plants" does not necessarily apply to all species of the genus, and the information may be more appropriate to one or more species articles. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you --Julcal (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)julcal

Category:Flora of Pakistan editor

A heads up - our IP editor who tags all taxa levels with Category:Flora of Pakistan is back at it: [3]. Anyone interested in helping clean that up? --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Last time this happened, I bludgeoned the category with a very blunt instrument: I removed it from every article that wasn't a species. And I'll do the same thing again unless someone with a little more finesse beats me to it. Hesperian 05:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Also did birds, mammals, fish, marine mammals. Still, he/she knows where Balochistan is, and is literate in English, so don't piss him/her off, as I'm one of the very few editors who speak English and edit articles in this arena. --KP Botany (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've checked them, removed that particular category where not applicable and left it when it is applicable or I was unsure. Melburnian (talk)

Bravo! Hesperian 13:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Adlumia

Adlumia fungosa needs to be merged with Adlumia (monotypic genus). Colchicum (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Cherry blossom#Taxobox image

Hi! I'd like to ask for your opinion and advice. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wulfenia

Wulfenia is not monotypic, yet now it redirects to W. carinthiaca. Please fix this. Colchicum (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I started a substub, feel free to add to it. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing sub about it; well done. Personally, I delete these all the time. A red link is always better than a blue link that redirects to a non-monotypic parent taxon. Hesperian 00:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

IDs, please

I would appreciate a couple flower IDs so I can incorporate into articles if they are lacking. They both are in upstate New York.

• 
  (1) Hyacinth?
• (2) Each flower is a bit larger than a quarter
  (2) Each flower is a bit larger than a quarter

Thanks in advance! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 16:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

1 - a cultivar of Hyacinthus orientalis (not native), 2 - Sanguinaria canadensis. Colchicum (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent; thank you very much! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 21:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Trying to identify a plant.

Hey everyone, just wondering if anyone has any idea what this plant is? It's some sort of succulent or cactus, with a fleshy, triangular stem with a row of thorns and small leaves on each corner. I've had it about two years and the main stem is 38" from soil to tip, with a lot of smaller substems coming off it. As far as I'm aware, it hasn't flowered.

Mystery Plant

• File:Mystery Plant 1.JPG
• File:Mystery Plant 2.JPG
• File:Mystery Plant 3.JPG

Any ideas would be gratefully received! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Euphorbia trigona? Commons images here. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! That seems to be the one! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Gametophycation

Appears to be a hoax, only contribution of an SPA. If it's meant to be legitimate, it grossly oversimplifies and misstates.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd call it patent nonsense. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this phenomenon could really occur with green algae such as Ulothrix (or eventually Acrosiphonia) Channer (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the "extended periods of time", "sympatric speciation", and "adaptive radiation" that I doubt. Some ferns also do weird things with their gametophytes, but I've never seen those terms applied. And I thought about "patent nonsense" for a speedy, but it seems more like a hoax, which isn't covered. If an admin wants to speedy it, I'm in favor; otherwise I'll prod it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no google hits and I wasn't able to locate the term in academic database searches. Could be misspelled? Doubt it though, the content is dubious. I'd support a speedy or prod. --Rkitko ^(talk) 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

PRODed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, gametophytation would make more sense as a spelling, but there's no Google hits for that either, nor for gametophytisation. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Aye, but leave it to a Yank to look for "gametophytization". It seems to always be in the context of "precocious gametophytization of the MMC" (megaspore mother cell) and there is a patent for using it to make apomictic plants.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Another strange article

Kirsch Pink Colchicum (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a cultivar of Salvia microphylla. I added the species, a cultivar infobox, and another ref. More digging might turn up more. Seems notable enough for a cultivar article on its own. --Rkitko ^(talk) 19:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

ID

File:Flower1 Like I care.jpg, Please help me identify. Picture taken in MD. Thanks. --Like I Care 03:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a cultivar of Prunus serrulata. Melburnian (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Melburnian. --Like I Care 18:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Illustrations

This was kind of eh, for lack of a better word, fun:

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/238722 <--1830

http://www.google.com/books?id=2h0aAAAAYAAJ&pg=PT138 <--1852

It seems that the author has a wikipage here Gilbert Thomas Burnett and the botanist template has been commented out.... -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It was probably commented out because it was placed below {{reflist}}, causing a big red error message noting that a ref exists, but it can't be used because it's after the reflist or <references/> tags. I went ahead and fixed it. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Stobrum

A new page that seems like it should be merged with whatever the plant actually is. Smartse (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't support any merge on this article to a species article. It's speculation at best which species those ancient writers were discussing. --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Rkitko the merge, unless it has already been researched and determined precisely what it is and the plant could not support a stand-alone article about its role in the Roman Empire. --KP Botany (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Another doubtful article

Carper (vellum) bean. A lot of the supposed Google hits are repurposed from Wikipedia, and the alleged scientific name only shows up in this article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I nuked it. No entry for alleged author Carper on IPNI. No hits for "carper bean" not linked directly to this hoax. No hits of "bennish bean" not linked directly to this hoax. Journal of West African Agriculture doesn't exist. Hesperian 01:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

IDs

• 
  1 -
• 
  1 -
• 
  2 - Very likely to be a Tasmanian native.
• 3 - Only flowers every few years
  3 - Only flowers every few years
• 
  4 - Probable Aust. Native
• 
  5 - Purple or White flowers. Bushy, 1.5-2.0m diameter and 2-3m high (a number of them at Gould's Lagoon, but don't think its a tas native).

Above are a few more IDs. I've seen two in the bush in a number of places, it grows on other plants. Thanks. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

2 - Billardiera sp.

3 -Haemanthus coccineus Melburnian (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

4 - Leptospermum squarrosum.

In general, any information on location and/or setting (garden, park, bushland) would be useful, particularly on the image description page at commons for ID and encyclopaedic purposes. A second image showing the whole of the plant would also be useful for ID purposes. Melburnian (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

1 - Chives --Melburnian (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

5 - Melaleuca sp. Melburnian (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Stevens

I searched the APG II paper for occurrence of the word "Stevens" in it. I really wanted to find that the name was not there and thus be justified to suggest eradicating that site from the plant articles here. Unfortunately my plan failed as the name Peter Stevens was clearly mentioned in the author list along with many other notable names....

My problem is not with the content of the web site but with the fact that the site seems to be designed to not want to be a reference.

Does anyone here have access to any of the people involved there to ask them what they were thinking when they designed that site and if there are any plans to make it more obvious to a casual user/peruser that they actually intend to be a reference? -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It does take a while to get your head around the way the information there is organised, doesn't it. But once you've figured out how to read it, it is an invaluable resource.

Having said that, citing APWeb is a little bit like citing Wikipedia: rather than citing APWeb itself, it is often better to use APWeb to discover the papers that you should be citing.

Hesperian 01:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

ID

I assume this is an azalea. Can anybody be more specific? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it is nearly impossible. It is Rhododendron subgenus Rhododendron, and not, strictly speaking, Azalea. My first guess would be a PJM cultivar, but it could easily be something else. Colchicum (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this within the scope of Wikipedia?

Species Tulips. WP:NOTHOWTO, any salvageable content should be in Tulipa. Colchicum (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC

If I had to guess, I'd say that the article was excerpted from the single book referenced. Check out the talk page of the main contributor -Barte (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

Lame edit-warring

Actinidia kolomikta. Colchicum (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

While I don't follow the reasoning for rejecting mention of the Soviet Union, a list containing both Russia and the Soviet Union does seem odd. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

They're not the same thing, either geospatially or timewise. The Soviet Union did introduce a number of new cultivars to their citizens. If it's edible, and the cultivar originated in that area, it likely was introduced under the Soviet Union. If it's still being cultivated today, it's being cultivated in Russia. The article discusses only the present tense so Russia is correct and Soviet Union is not. If something about the timeline of the cultivation can be located, including information about the plant under the Soviet Union might also be appropriate. --KP Botany (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the breeding program was started in the Soviet Union by this guy and is still reportedly active. Colchicum (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

When talking about the natural distribution Russia would be appropriate, but the bit of the article under contention uses the past tense. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Michurin seems likely, which means it was originally cultivated in the USSR. However, the sentence reads now, "There are a number of named cultivars bred for the latter purpose in Russia and Poland," and, you, User:Colchicum changed it to read, "There are a number of named cultivars bred for the latter purpose in the Soviet Union, Russia and Poland."[4] This is not correct, because there is no Soviet Union in which "a number of named cultivars are bred," because there is no Soviet Union. You can say a number of named cultivars were developed in the Soviet Union under agricultural programs directed by Michurin, but you can't say that they are being bred in the Soviet Union, because they're not.

This has nothing to do with politics, so neither of you should be discussing politics in edit summaries. It has to do with tense. What's happening now is placed geopolitically in places that exist now. You can use a historical place for what happened; but, please don't say it's happening now in the Soviet Union, which could make readers think it was plagiarized from something printed before 1992 and has not been edited since--and that's anteWiki.

Lavateraguy, this sentence is in the present tense. Is there more to this battle? Anyway, the natural distribution belongs in Russia (and elsewhere), as it's not a Soviet distribution. --KP Botany (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Without getting tangled up in the minutiae of grammatical nomenclature, the relevant clause of "There are a number of named cultivars bred for the latter purpose in the Soviet Union, Russia and Poland" appears to me to be in a past tense. Compare "There are a number of named cultivars bred in Ming-dynasty China", or "The are living people who were imprisoned by the Soviet government". Lavateraguy (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say, "There are cultivars grown today that were first bred in the Soviet Union," if that is what I meant. Of course, they may be bred today, also, if they're hybrids of some sort, this fuller sentence allows this. English can be used to make meanings precise, in particular to the lay reader, and this is a case where a few more words go a long way. --KP Botany (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And, if I meant past tense, I would say, "There were a number of named cultivars bred for ..." --KP Botany (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Need help with new article

Jimbu. Badagnani (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Need help with species

Need help at Talk:Buchanania. Badagnani (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy sources

As a zoologist with a passing interest in botany through plants' role as animal food... What are the primary sources for scientific names in botany. For example, who decides/dictates whether Ragwort is Jacobaea vulgaris or Senecio jacobaea? Most moth-related sources use the latter name, which is the major contributor to the article List of Lepidoptera that feed on Senecio, but the plant itself is "indexed" under the former name on Wikipedia. Thanks—GRM (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The prinary sources are the botanical literature - in floras, monographs, taxonomic journals, systematics journals, horticultural journals, etc. But did you mean to ask about primary sources, or about authorative sources? The latter don't exist, unless you count recent monographs and checklists, which do exist for a few groups. While there are rules (ICBN) on nomenclatural issues, and a committee to resolve some issues, there is no central authority for taxonomic issues, and each worker has the right to draw his own conclusions. In the case of your example you have a taxonomic issue. The genus Senecio would appear to be paraphyletic (see Pelser et al, Tacking speciose genera: species composition and phylogenetic position of Senecio sect. Jacobaea (Asteraceae) based on plastid and nrDNA sequences, American Journal of Botany 89(6): 929-939 (2002), but I would like to see better resolution). Consequently several recent authors have ressurrected the old segregate Jacobaea, in which Jacobaea vulgaris is the correct name for the plant long known as Senecio jacobaea. There doesn't seem to be any enthusiasm for transferring yet more species to the already unwieldy (~1500 species) genus Senecio, so opinion falls between recognising Jacobaea now, or waiting until more information is available on how to dismember Senecio. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully this gives some idea of how complicated these things can be. If both names are in reasonably wide use, we should mention both in the article, and make sure a redirect exists from the "other" name. Kingdon (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification—GRM (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Flower ID

Flower sp.?

Any idea what flower is in this picture? It's probably native to the US. Unfortunately I don't have any other pictures of it or information. Kaldari (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Salvia greggii ? Melburnian (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll just say "sage flowers" in the description to be safe. Kaldari (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)