Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Genus confusion

Lychnis coronaria redirects to Silene coronaria. Is this a Lychnis or a Silene? Can someone who knows which is correct please change this. Thanks Smartse (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Aparently, the current name of the taxon is Silene coronaria (L.) Clairv. (syn.: Lychnis coronaria (L.) Desr.). See "Werner Greuter. 1995. Silene (Caryophyllaceae) in Greece: A Subgeneric and Sectional Classification. Taxon, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 543-581 ", where it is clear form the abstract that all Lychnis species were transferred to Silene. --EnCASF (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • There doesn't seem to be any consensus as to how to treat Silene, Lychnis and related genera, but for what it's worth, FNA sinks Lychnis in Silene. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

IDs

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5 - Blue shadows are lighting related, pretty sure its a Chrysanthemum
• 
  6
• 7
  7
• 
  8
• 9
  9
• 
  10 - Its Correa Reflexa, but any info on the variety would be appreciated.

Built up a bit of a backlog. My book couldn't help me get more specific with these. Any info would be appreciated. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

1 - Spathiphyllum, 2 = Hippeastrum, 7 - Lychnis coronaria. 5 might be a Dahlia. PS, it's Grevillea, not Grevillia. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

3,4 Protea, 6 Silene/Lychnis coronaria see "Genus confusion" above, 7 Lycianthes rantonnetii, 8 Hebe , 9 Grevillea rosmarinifolia Melburnian (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cistanthe umbellata photos

Anyone want to take a stab at confirming or denying the identification of the photos at Cistanthe umbellata? The one in the taxobox seems to match the photos at CalPhotos (although I'm somewhat confused by the fact that the Jepson manual and FNA both specify white petals). The one recently added seems to be a different species, more of a raceme than an umbel for one thing, although the photo doesn't seem to show the leaves. Kingdon (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the new pic is a better match for Cistanthe monosperma - C. umbellata is supposed to have red/yellow stamens, while this pic shows the rose/pink stamens of C. monosperma. Pics like [1] seem like a pretty good match too. Cistanthe petals tend to wither quickly, so the heads will often end up looking reddish or brownish overall. Stan (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's another photo of the same plant as in the new picture. Melburnian (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the new picture out of the Cistanthe umbellata article and put it in to the Cistanthe article as Cistanthe sp. for now. Melburnian (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Help me ID this one?

Dunno!

I can't seem to figure this one out. It's not in any of my field guides, and searching the innerwebs has proven fruitless. Sorry about the poor quality of the photo. I can get a better shot Monday if needed. Photo was taken in Concord, NH (USA) on June 4. --Jomegat (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's Cynanchum louiseae[2][3] syn. Vincetoxicum nigrum. Melburnian (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll see about getting a better picture next week, as the Commons doesn't have a wide selection. --Jomegat (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Mission accomplished: File:Cynanchum louiseae_3800.JPG. --Jomegat (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Tobacco

I have proposed creation of a WikiProject on tobacco, which would relate to a degree to this project. Anyone interested please feel free to so indicate on the proposal page. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Strengthen COMMONNAME Hesperian 00:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Lodd.

The Kew checklist gives the authority for Sabal glaucescens as Lodd. ex H.E.Moore, Gentes Herb. 9: 287 (1963). According to IPNI, Lodd. is the author abbreviation for Conrad Loddiges, who lived from 1738 to 1826 (although our article attributes the author abbreviation to his son, George, but even he died no later than 1854). MoBot's Tropicos agrees, suggesting that it isn't simply a typo. Tropicos lists the type specimen as an undated collection by Bailey[4] from Quinam, Trinidad (been there, know the population of trees!). Despite the fact that Bailey lived to be 96, he still doesn't overlap with Loddiges. So what is going on? Did Moore validate Loddiges' name by publishing an unpublished description from over a century ago? Is that even allowed? Sadly, I don't have access to Gentes Herb., so I can't look it up. Guettarda (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

IPNI has a record reading "Sabal glaucescens Lodd. ex Mart. -- Hist. Nat. Palm. iii. 320, nomen". Looking that up on Botanicus finds a bare reference to the name (as implied by the IPNI record) - "S? glaucescens Lodd. - Insula Trinitatis". The dates of Hist. Nat. Palm. aren't immediately obvious, but Botanicus has 1823-50, which predates Grisebach and Wendland's publication of Sabal mauritiiforme (1864), which is what is given as the accepted name in Tropicos, and Karsten's publication of the basionym Trithrinax mauritiiformis "mauritiaeformis"(1856). S. glaucescens Lodd. ex Mart. is nom. inval. nom. nud. Regretably this still doesn't clarify matters. It's possible that Moore thought glaucescens was specifically distinct from mauritiiforme, but I suspect that he was just validating a name lalready in circulation, with a new description, rather than publication of an old unpublished one. (Like everyone else I don't have access to Gentes Herb.) Lavateraguy (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Sabal mauritiiformis is the accepted name. I was starting an article and came across the apparent oddity when putting together the synonymy. If Moore thought that the Trinidadian populations belonged to a distinct species (which sounds far from unreasonable, given the patch distribution of the species from Mexico to Trinidad) he might have resurrected Loddiges' name and given him credit. Guettarda (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If I read Grisebach correctly, the type of Sabal mauritiiformis is from Trinidad, but was a cultivated tree. However the range given in Grisebach is just Trinidad and Venezuela. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it's based on a collection by Crueger, presumably from the botanic gardens in Port of Spain. It's a pretty common tree, and I'm guessing that it would have been widely cultivated in the 19th century since it's the main species used for thatch. Thanks for the pointers. Guettarda (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating - Crueger called it Copernicia (Outline of the flora of Trinidad, p. 22; "Carat" is the common name for this species in Trinidad). Guettarda (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Black-eyed Susan

Hi. I've got a bunch of Rudbeckia growing in my back yard, and I'm trying to decide if they're R. fulgida or R. hirta. My (Wikipedia- and google-based) research seems to indicate that R. hirta has hairy stems and leaves, while R. fulgida is less hairy. The plants in my yard seem not to have any hair at all on the stems or leaves, so I'm leaning towards calling them R. fulgida. Is that a reliable way to decide? Is there some other good way to distinguish these two species? Thanks in advance for any help... -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a key here. Whether the plants are rhizomatous or not is probably a good starting point. Guettarda (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say they're not rhizomatous. Whether I'm seeing a small taproot or a fibrous root system is less clear to me.

That key seems very helpful, but I'm working through it rather slowly, what with all the vocabulary that's unfamiliar to me. I just learned about root systems, for example. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The first option allows for either a taproot or a a fibrous root, so either way you'd go to (3). So the next thing you should look for is whether the hairs on the stems and leaves feel soft/woolly or course/hard. If it looks like R. hirta (which is likely, based on where your user page says you are) you've got 4 varieties to choose from[5]. (Based on distribution R. hirta var. angustifolia or R. hirta var. pulcherrima are probably the most likely options.) The language of botanical descriptions is rather challenging, even if you have a good glossary. (Illustrated glossaries are best.) But there are probably lots of people here who would be happy to help. Guettarda (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The most common in gardens (as far as I've noticed near Washington, DC, anyway) is Rudbeckia fulgida var. sullivantii 'Goldsturm'). I think the growth habit might be the easiest way to tell the two apart (e.g. "Plants stoloniferous (rosettes forming at stolon apices" from the Flora of North America key), although there are differences in the hair (both have at least some hair) and I think leaf color as well. One disclaimer: the Flora of North America key is aimed at wild/naturalized populations rather than garden cultivars, although that doesn't seem to be causing difficulties in the discussion so far. Kingdon (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

IDs June 11

A few images that need IDs:

• 
  Gazania, yes?
• 
  Is this Primrose?
• 
  Each ball sits on a long—36 inches (91 cm)—stalk

All images taken yesterday in upstate New York. Thanks! wadester16 04:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

These appear to be cultivars of, respectively, Gazania, Oenothera and Allium. Melburnian (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Since primrose was mentioned, the vernacular name of Oenothera is evening primrose - but it is not closely related to primrose (Primula vulgaris) Lavateraguy (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Allium is Allium giganteum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnCASF (talk • contribs) 13:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! wadester16 14:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Image ID

Certianly not tobacco!

The file and sign in the file say this is Tobacco (Nicotiana), which clearly isn't the case. Is there enough development to relaiably place this in the correct genus? It looks like something in the Aristolochiaceae to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arborology vs Dendrology

Question: Arborology isn't even in my dictionary... is this an accepted term or is Dendrology the actual field of study? Thanks, —Noah 13:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

By the google test dendrology wins out by a thousand to one ratio. Even xylology beats arborology 10 to 1. See also arboristics, arboriculture and sylviculture. I would consider arborology to be a variant term - compare graminology and agrostology. I would deprecate it, but others might disagree. Arboristics and arboriculture seem to the more common terms for the field defined at arborology. I suggest a redirect to arboriculture. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The accepted term is dendrology. The problem (linguistically) with "arborology" is that it puts a Greek suffix on a Latin stem arbor. You're not supposed to mix Latin and Greek parts in the construction new words. Of course, that doesn't stop some people from doing so, but you're not supposed to do that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Awww EncycloPetey you beat me to it...anyway, I was going to say what he said so it goes double :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about arborology, but an arborist doesn't study dendrology. The question is whether arborology is sufficiently different from arboriculture. I'd redirect the former to the latter, rather than to dendrology. Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Algae articles AnyBot writing nonsense

Anybot created 100s, maybe 1000s of algae articles, incorrectly gathering and using the information from an on-line database, AlgaeBase. The articles have the incorrect taxonomies in their taxon boxes, among a variety of errors too numerous to enumerate. The bot owner was explained the taxonomy problems by two other IP editors.

Other errors, in part: Extinct species have articles that make them appear as if they are extant taxa. The number of species is incorrect, and the wording is incorrect. For example where the database has verified 7 names, the bot wrote that there are only 7 "taxonomically accepted species," something not stated in the database. Articles contain terms that are not defined on wikipedia or descriptive terms that are not the same as those used in the taxonomic parent article, or use contradictory terms within the same article, confusing the reader on top of misinforming them. Higher taxa are not the same from genus to family.

There is an article, for example, about a diatom with a long history in the sedimentary record. It's important in oil exploration. Dozens of wikipedia mirrors have copied this article making sure the wrong information now dominates general online searches about this organism.

The bot owner has oddly passed me the responsibility of correcting his errors of fact[6] in spite of claiming to be a PhD student in evolutionary botany.[7] I do know that anyone can claim any expertise they want on wikipedia, a good reason to avoid claiming any.

He suggests I write the algorithm for his bot to correct the articles, but there are too many and diverse errors for a script to correct them.

--69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've worked with Martin (User:Smith609, the bot owner) before and appreciate some of the work he does and have nothing but cordial conversations. I, too, found these errors and corrected some, but it seemed to be systemic, so I reported what I found back in March. Take Chroococcus for example. If Anybot was gathering information correctly from AlgaeBase, it wouldn't have made the mistakes it did (calling a cyanobacteria an algae, placing it in Eukaryota...). Having even mentioned this again to Martin in April, I've still received no reply on whether or not he's working on fixing all the mistakes. I have no reason to doubt Martin's abilities or motives, but I'm puzzled as to why he hasn't attempted to fix these serious errors. We can take the advice at Wikipedia:Bot policy and take this discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and/or Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Does any of this have to do with the hundreds of algae-related by 213.214.136.54? Are the edits by the IP okay? Sciurinæ (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The bot has nothing to do with me and my edits. I have just tried to fix the most serious taxonomical errors because the bot owner seems to be unable to fix them. I've done this manually, and I've spent three long days with this unpleasant work. I would be delighted if anyone could help with cleaning this mess.

--213.214.136.54 (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP edits I've looked at are OK. Diatoms are not in the same group as green plants and red algae, for instance, and the IP has corrected this sort of problem for many articles. I can't say that every edit is perfect, but they look like improvements to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can not promise that every correction I made is just perfect. For example, I am not sure which one of the many lower-level classification systems of bacillariophytes should be used in Wikipedia.

All cyanobacteria-related articles created by the bot are still seriously incorrect: the bot has classified cyanobacteria as eukaryotes!

--213.214.136.54 (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note on Martin's User page. If he doesn't respond to the issues raised by later this week, please let me know. Kaldari (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

For now can someone stop the bot from writing more articles? The algorithm is bad. The discussions Martin had about taxonomies indicate he did not understand the area well enough to write the program. The articles are, meanwhile, being copied all over the net by wiki mirrors. Martin is creating more. And, he won't be able to deal with the matter until October; meanwhile, as his errors sit and get copied, he's editing 100s of articles in other areas.

I checked about a dozen of 213.214.136.54's edits, they are fine. Another IP also corrected many major errors.

This is a volunteer encyclopedia, but is it usual to find someone has inserted bad information into hundreds of articles, inform them of this, then allow them to continue writing more articles?

--69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Martin's bot has written about 6000 algae articles. Every one I investigated contained serious misinformation, except for those that had been later edited by other writers. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This suggests problematic behaviour by the bot as well - edit-warring between bots. (True, it's kinda funny, but it suggests that there's a serious problem with the bot's code. Guettarda (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC) And here it's edit-warring with human editors. Guettarda (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is funny. Maybe funnier without the 6000 bad articles. That is another major issue with the algorithm: overwriting existing articles. I think all bots would be coded to prevent that, unless they are a specific code to rewrite the text it is replacing, such as formatting citations. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Martin has indicated he is willing to work on a script to correct the problems. However, he needs detailed information on what needs to be corrected and how (which sounds reasonable). If you have constructive information for him, please post it on his talk page. Kaldari (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All of the articles that I have checked include incorrect statements and some include nonsense. The red algae articles, for example, are written as if the common life history of a member is either a single generation or a simple alteration of generations, but the description does not differentiate among generations. All descriptions of genera in the red algae should be deleted.

The taxonomies within the article equate the verification of species names on AlgaeBase with the correct number of species for a genus. The two are not equal. All sentences about the number of "taxonomically correct" species should be deleted.

The bot should probably remove everything but a simple sentence in the cases where the article is about a seaweed. Where the article is about one of the less familiar groups, such as diatoms, the entire article should probably be deleted unless the script can change it to, "Genusthisone is a diatom."

All articles about extinct species should be identified as such, but this cannot be done if the bot does not know which species are extinct/extant.

There are so many errors and so many different types of errors that it is impossible to address each one other than by individually editing each article. I don't write science articles without checking sources. It would take me hours to verify each one. Why is the bot putting together random information culled from deep within text anyhow to create these truly strange articles on red alage? It should never have done anything but pull specific tagged data from the article.

I assume it would take about 12000 hours to identify all of the errors in 6000 algae articles of this nature. And that by experts in their field. I'm a paleontologist/stratigrapher, not a phycologist. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As for whether this is still going on, see [8] which says that any edits by AnyBot after April were a mistake (and can be reverted in bulk if anyone has a technical means to do that). As for the errors, I expressed some scepticism about bot-generated algae articles before AnyBot started, but I'm not sure I know enough about algae taxonomy (or AlgaeBase) to have been a lot more forceful than I was. For what it is worth, I now oppose any further bot-created algae or plant articles. Kingdon (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a notice at the Administrators' noticeboard to see if anyone can help with this situation. Kaldari (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Which are the problem edits?

I see a lot of smoke above, but little light. According to [9], edits after April were done in some unauthorized manner and the bot is now blocked until it is determined how this may have happened. Are there problems with the edits in April or earlier, or is it just the later edits? If there are errors in the earlier edits, are they due to bot error or error in the source data (which was apparently approved by WP:PLANTS)? Anomie⚔ 01:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes to both. AlgaeBase uses outdated taxonomy, which had been mentioned, I believe, before Martin started the bot. The bot also messed up sufficiently on its own, clearly parsing data incorrectly or assuming some data need not be parsed (see my example above with Chroococcus). If the bot had parsed the data correctly from AlgaeBase, it would not have 1) called all cyanobacteria (about 2000 articles?) an algae in the text, 2) not have placed it in Eukaryota, and 3) not have placed it in the Archaeplastida. This information is correct in AlgaeBase, as far as I know. These edits are all pre-April shutdown. There were also some other systematic problems, like categorizing articles into non-existent categories and not creating them, essentially leaving them uncategorized, save for the stub category (e.g. Asparagopsis). Oh, and the supposed "approval" by WP:PLANTS archived discussion link you quote contains a comment by only one regular WP:PLANTS editor. I remember there being another discussion on this, since I remember commenting on it, but I can't seem to find it. The response there was lukewarm at best. --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps #Bot generating plant stubs above? Hesperian 04:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Rkitko's Chroococcus links for your convenience:

• AlgaeBase says Chroococcus is Prokaryote bacteria
• Anybot, in February, says it is Eukaryote algae
• Rkitko reports problem in March
• Rkitko pokes bot owner in April
• June 17 version of the article still says it is Eukaryote algae.

I can see no reason to doubt 69's statement that

"Martin's bot has written about 6000 algae articles. Every one I investigated contained serious misinformation, except for those that had been later edited by other writers."

A lot of smoke with little light?!

Hesperian 02:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rkitko, that was helpful. Anomie⚔ 03:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Rkitko and Hesperian. I would like to make it as clear as I can: the articles are worse than useless. In spite of being called rude I am trying to say this as politely as possible. The bad articles started in February with AnyBot's first posts. ALL of this bot's articles that I have reviewed are WRONG. Not in a minor way. Here are some examples from the first set of edits the bot made:

• Feditia created by Anybot in February. Our article includes a taxobox making this a diatom, but it is listed as a brown alga in AlgaeBase. It's a kelp, not a diatom.

In addition the article states: "The only taxonomically valid species is F. simuschirensis."

this is not what AlgaeBase says. AlgaeBase says:

There is only one species name in the species database at present, of which 1 is flagged as currently accepted taxonomically.[10]

I don't recall where I said it, but I do recall a few months back pointing out this particular class of false inference from AlgaeBase. (But whether it was in respect of anybot, or someone manually writing articles, I don't recall for sure.) [Wikipedia ES has the reverse problem in its plant articles - it's got synonyms in its species lists; I've cleaned up a few genera, but I expect that the problem is widespread.] Lavateraguy (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Gayliella is also listed as a diatom that reproduces using tetraspores in an article written by Anybot in February. It's not a very unusual diatom. It's a red alga.[11]

• Costularia is another kelp for which AnyBot has written an article classifying it as a diatom. Written in February.[12]

• Chloroclonium is a green alga listed by AnyBot as a diatom. Again, created in February.[13]

• Cladochaete, also listed as a diatom, is a FUNGUS...

The errors are HUGE. EVERY article created by this bot has errors of this nature. The taxonomies are wrong. The terminology is used incorrectly. The Rhodophyta descriptions are nonsense. The only exceptions I found were the few articles I came across that had been edited by a couple of IPs. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

How to correct the mess

Do you think the articles can be fixed (by a bot) or are the issues too complicated (in which case they should just be deleted)? Kaldari (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best to move forward now under the assumption that every algae article created by AnyBot and not edited by a human editor is wrong and consider what to do about getting these 6000 articles off of wikipedia or corrected ASAP? The more I look the worse the errors are.

My suggestion is they be deleted from Wikipedia, except for ones edited by humans, IPs or registered users. These last should be listed to allow them to be checked thoroughly. Is that possible?

I thought at first a script could be written to pare the articles down to a single sentence, but that was before I realized there are taxoboxes labeling red/brown/green algae and fungi as diatoms. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting a bot to delete the articles may be quite difficult, as bots are typically not allowed to have admin status and thus the ability to delete articles (for good reason). Is there any possibility of systematically correcting the taxoboxes and stubifying the rest? Kaldari (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You could delete the taxonomy boxes and stubify the text. This is still a problem because the bot called all genera "algae" which is poor usage at best, 100% wrong at worst (fungi listed as diatoms). But, stubifying inaccurate text still leaves inaccurate text. How many other algae that are not algae or distant relatives (fungi are nowhere close to algae) are there? Do you want to risk leaving articles of this nature on wikipedia? Is it worth it?

Because so many of the articles are wrong with their taxonomies, the only way to correct it is with another bot that would get the correct taxonomy from AlgaeBase (if the genus is there, as it would not be in the case of fungi).

Possibly in two steps the articles could be stubified ASAP, while another bot operator writes a script to get the correct taxonomy from AlgaeBase then changes "alga" to "diatom", or "brown algae"? Is that workable in a reasonable amount of time? I'm still concerned about how many articles we have that list really distant genera as algae. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But it seems you want to keep the taxonomy boxes. This would require a script. AlgaeBase lists division/class/etc. A bot could pull simply the class and rewrite the taxobox, with an agreed upon taxonomy from plant or phycology editors. If the bot comes across a taxon not in AlgaeBase or without a class or division, the bot could post that article somewhere to be checked by a human editor? AlgaeBase uses variable taxonomies, which makes it problematic for bot scripts to begin with, but, using only higher order taxa (division/class) and having the script work according to wikipedia taxonomy use could deal with that issue. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a tool in use that can list all of the edits made by an account as diffs, grouped per article with bytes added/removed, on a single page. Unfortunately, I do not remember where it's kept or what it's called. It may even be an external program. IMO, it's probably easier in the long run to just delete anything suspect and start over with a clean slate. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This could be very useful for finding articles where the bot rewrote other articles to create a redirect. Please try to find the name of this tool. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've asked over at the Administrators' Noticeboard. I saw it in use there (or at ANI) not so long back. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Possibly this could be used to find any articles inadvertently changed to redirects by the bot. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

How to prevent the same mess from reoccurring

I do wish that people monitoring bots had been more careful as part of the problem is lack of oversight. The bot made a sample run, then was authorized to go forward without seeking input from editors verifying the articles, such as checking the taxoboxes and descriptions against the data. The bot owner does not have the time and may not be the best person to correct the errors in the articles. Probably, as complex as "algae" systematics is, having the articles written by a bot run by someone who is not a phycologist nor a taxonomist, was not a good idea, as pointed out. It would be nice if the wikipedia community as a whole addressed this issue to prevent this happening again. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, Martin did notify projects (e.g. PLANTS) and there were a few constructive responses at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/anybot after his message here. Perhaps it wasn't a thorough enough response, but a conversation did occur. --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My major concern is that after the first batch of articles was created, the sample run, the articles were not fact-checked by phycology editors (or plant editors) before the final approval of the bot. The process did not seem to require that at any point. This is a mistake, imo.

Also the depth of the articles created by the bot is a problem. Algae sensu latissimo are taxonomically difficult organisms even for phycologists. It seems unreasonable to expect that a bot run by a non-phycologist could create elaborate articles that include descriptions of red algae culled from databases. A bot writing morphological descriptions of red algae genera?

I think these are the biggest mistakes rather than Martin's errors in programming: no basic stops to prevent it. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of Anybot's edits using ContributionSurveyor

At User:Kurt Shaped Box/Anybot edits. It's a very long list (1MB, give or take) but everything should be pretty self-explanatory. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Martin has done a decent job of cleaning up the most egregious errors (replacing articles with redirects). Kaldari (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This accounts for only a small number (how many, less than 100?) of the 6000 bad articles and only cleaned up the writing over of articles, but the resulting articles are still wrong.

It does not address the factual errors in what appears to be every one of the 6000+ articles.

Doesn't wikipedia require factual accuracy? Reliability? Referenced materials to agree with what is referenced? The bot created 6000 bad articles.

The bot did not pull the correct information from the database, or did not render it correctly. It did not correctly extract the existing taxonomies. Wikipedia has articles about red algae, green algae, flowering plants, and fungi that list them as diatoms. 1000s of such articles? Wikipedia has 1000s of articles listing bacteria as eukaryotes.

It is hard on wikipedia to point out a mistake. This is a surreal discussion to point out 6000 bad articles and be told the worst of it has been fixed because the worst of it was not that the bot inserted 6000 bad articles on wikipedia but that it overwrote dozens of existing articles. Every article on wikipedia has someone fighting to keep it. But why are you fighting to keep these 6000 bad articles?

The bot did not write the articles correctly. It created 6000 bad algae and bacteria articles. These were created from day 1.

Here are some more errors, Kurt Shaped Boxes' list also shows that the

• Gloiothamnion is a synonym. Nesaea is a synonym. It says this in AlgaeBase, but the bot created articles for synonyms. This is a basic error in the programming algorithm.
• Phacus, a photosynthetic Euglenozoa, is classified as a plant.
• Discolithus, coccoliths are also plants on wikipedia, although, again, click on their taxoboxes and their higher taxonomies disagree with the articles AnyBot wrote, like the Euglenozoa. Also, although not taxonomically accepted, the first species in the list is included under taxonomically valid names in the wikipedia article. This is not consistent, but occurs often enough that all articles edited by the IP should have the first item in their species list verified.
• ditto Nematoplata It appears that when the first name is not taxonomically valid, AnyBot sometimes included it anyhow. These are basic errors in the underlying algorithm.
• Phormidium, a cyanobacterium is described as having a crustose thallus. The term filamentous used in articles about cyanobacteria should be carefully distinguished as a bacterial colony's sheath. However, since our cyanobacteria articles make them eukaryotes the reader may not understand this is a bacterial colony not a multi-cellular organism with undifferentiated tissue (a thallus).
• Codium/algaebase article created in spite of existence of Codium article. This genus contains "palisade cells" according to the AnyBot article, but not according to AlgaeBase: it contains a "palisade-like layer". Bad article name. The size is wrong, Codium grow huge, and are not limited to 1cm in size as our Codium/algaebase article states. Again, these are basic errors in the algorithm. The bot does not extract size ranges, only a single unit of size (and these are genera, not species, articles). The bot did not catch hyphenated words. Again, basic errors in the coding algorithm due to a failure to understand how the database was organized and how to extract biological information from databases.
• Discoaster The species list contains dozens of species that are unverified in AlgaeBase, but are listed as valid in the AnyBot article. Again, the algorithm or the code is incorrect.
• When the bot was used to correct bugs introduced on April 18th ("last night") it added text to articles that were not impacted by the bugs, for example, it added non-verified species to the list of "valid" species in the Lithophyllum article. [14]
• Thalassia is a sea grass, a flowering plant, not an algae. It says this in AlgaeBase, but the bot was improperly coded and, again, the database was not examined before coding, and wikipedia has prokaryotes and angiosperms listed as algae.
• Predaea The bot also did not correctly count the number of species it inserted in some articles it created in February. [15]
• Kuetzingia some articles created in February did not consistently discuss the same organism. This article is about Kuetzingia in its first sentences and Sporolithon in its second. [16] Were all these errors corrected?

There are, again, many problems and a variety of problems, new problems not noted before. There are seagrasses on AlgaeBase, so AnyBot wrote Thalassia (alga). The bot created articles for synonyms. The number of species in some lists is counted wrong (this is a coding error, a basic one). The bot included the first listed species in some articles, even when AlgaeBase indicates it is not a valid name. It created nonsense names in one case when the article already existed (Codium/algaebase for Codium), again, a basic coding error. The sizes are wrong (Codium grows large, the Codium/algaebase article says it grows to 1 cm). When the data base find key terms the article includes the term whether appropriate or not (palisade-like layer becomes "has palisade cells" in our article). Some species lists include dozens of names that are not valid.

I assume the solution now, with the statement that Martin has corrected the most egregious errors, is the wikipedia solution: the articles stay. 1000s of cyanobacteria listed as eukaryotes. Synonyms given species articles. Flowering plants called algae. 6000 nonsense articles copied all over the net by dozens of wikipedia mirror sites.

Not one of these articles has contributed to writing an encyclopedia. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please try to calm down and take a deep breathe. We know the articles are terrible and filled with errors. We know that Anybot has created a huge stinking mess. Talking about that isn't going to solve the problem. We need come up with a specific plan of action on how to tackle the mess. Kaldari (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If there are articles you want deleted, give me a list. I will personally delete them. For the rest we will need to formulate a bot request for stubification. Kaldari (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Same here. I also have the delete button. I realize that this may be an unfair thing to ask of 69.226, if the number of incorrect articles with nothing salvageable is '6000' (just for the record, I know absolutely nothing about this subject, so I'm limited in what I can do, correction-wise). As I've mentioned before, it might actually be easier to simply delete any article started by Anybot that has not since been corrected/improved by meat-based editors. At least that way, the errors are going to stop getting propagated across the web. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not discuss me, just the articles, Kaldari.

I am trying to get across how bad these articles are and you seem to be trying to find ways to save them. They are not savable without writing a script that pulls information from the database. Easier to write a script that recreates the 6000 articles. To save these articles would be harder than to delete them and recreate them. Writing code to extract information from databases is simple. Algorithms exist. There are existing programs in a number of languages. But data must be extracted with knowledge of the type of information contained. This was not done. This would require input from plant article writers, better phycologists. I've offered other solutions. You've announced that the worst of the mess has been cleaned up. I disagree. The worst of the mess is the collection of 1000s of bacteria articles listing them as true nucleated organisms.

I would like all of the articles deleted. I cannot see a better solution because of the number of errors and the number of types of errors. I thought stubifying to "thisGenus is an alga" would be good, as you suggest. But it won't work, some 1000s of the articles are not algae. So creating stubs with one sentence would require accessing the database to find out what the organism is, a cyanobacterium, a flowering plant, a red algae, a diatom, in order to create that sentence. Otherwise the sentence is "Thisgenus is." Even that won't work because some of the species are fossils. The stubs would be "Thisgenus", if the database is not accessed for corrections. However, this too is complicated by the fact that some of the articles were created by pulling random information from the article, like the fungus. It's an author's name, not a genus. So the code would also have to produce a list of articles that are not genera or taxa in AlgaeBase.

The number of tasks for a bot to rewrite the articles might create some of the same sloppy coding errors that created the problem. Only primary information that is tagged should be extracted from online databases. To write a bot to do this is straight-forward, if wikipedia has the coders with this ability. If wikipedia does not have coders with this ability, it does not have programmers with the ability to write the more complicated script needed to rewrite these articles.

I think that the nature of the errors and the diversity of the errors requires the articles be deleted.

Kurt Shaped Box remind me articles subsequently edited by an IP or registered editor (meat) could remain, but a list should be made of them for checking. The one IP corrected only taxonomies. Articles edited by another bot should be deleted. This is usually AddBot adding a banner that says the article is an orphan.

But for starters, one of you please individually delete the absurdly titled Codium/algaebase and move Thalassia (alga) to Thalassia (genus) and delete the incorrect Thalassia (alga). --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

PS Thanks for the list, Kurt Shaped Box.

No worries. Done those for you. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't trying to say that most of the damage had been corrected. I was simply saying that the most egregious individual cases of error had been corrected (which is a small but positive step). I have no preference if the articles are kept or deleted. I don't understand why you think I'm pushing to have these articles kept. I was just trying to evaluate the different courses of action available. Since I am a bot-writer I thought maybe I could help, but I don't have the technical scientific knowledge to be able to fix the articles without very specific instructions. But it looks like it doesn't matter anyway, since you are favoring mass deletion. Kaldari (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I start to believe there are errors in the code. For example, the bot cannot even do basic counting. In Borzia, the bot listed 7 species yet the lead sentence says the genus is consisted of 2 species. I have to correct this factual error myself.[17] In Algaebase, it described this genus as "There are 16 species names in the species database at present, of which 7 are flagged as currently accepted taxonomically" so I have no clue where the information "2 species" came from. I have notified this error a month ago,[18] yet there's no response from bot owner. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank the IPs, namely 69.226.103.13 and 213.214.136.54, for raising the alarm. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

So, can you see any more blatantly wrong entries on the list that require immediate removal? It's probably a good idea to clear out the obvious howlers and get them off of Google before we do anything else. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The most blatantly wrong articles are not the wrong number counts. The most blatantly wrong articles are the 1000s of bacteria identified as eukaryotes, wrong by possibly as many as 2 billion years rather than by 1, or even 37, incorrect species. There could hardly be something more scientifically wrong on wikipedia than calling a bacteria a eukaryote, fundamentally changing billions of years of evolutionary history on earth.

In addition number counts on all articles are incorrect. As Lavateraguy points out above the bot was coded on an incorrect inference. That a list of species in AlgaeBase has been verified as taxonomically correct has nothing to do with the number of species in a genus. So, if an incorrect number count is considered blatantly wrong enough to require immediate removal all articles meet this requirement. The number counts are wrong because AlgaeBase does not include the information about the number of species in the genus except for monotypic genera, and with most monotypic genera I've reviewed anybot pulled the wrong number, for example says there is one species then lists two or says there are two for a monotypic genus and lists one. Amoebophyra "The two species currently recognised are A. stycholonchae." --69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So... Would it be easier to ask you for a list of the articles that are worth keeping? ;) *Sigh* - what a bloody mess. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have searched for categories of articles that could be saved, such as all of the green algae or red algae or diatom articles anybot created, but I cannot a single group of savables. The more I look the more different types of errors I find. If anyone wants to save some of the articles, the ones edited by the IPs or registered user are savable, but they need a few more edits. This is probably a list of about 100 articles. I could do subsequent edits on these articles if listed, but I don't know how to generate the list.

I looked at other well-written and referenced phycology articles to see if there was a writer on wikipedia already who could identify savable articles, there are about half a dozen editors who do phycology articles outside of the green algae (which appear written and maintained by WillowW, EncycloPetey, Hesperian, Eugene van der Pijll, Lavateraguy and the list of authors below). These authors appear to have expertise at some level in the obscure groups of algae, they write well, although one is not a native English speaker, they use proper references, their terminology is correct, they understand the lifecycles and can accurately describe the morphology, and they have a grasp of at least one of the currently accepted higher level taxonomies, although they appear to disagree among them as to which one:

• Josh Grosse (inactive)
• Werothegreat (inactive)
• TheAlphaWolf
• KP Botany
• Onco p53
• Osborne (highest level of expertise, but don't dismiss the others)
• Esculapio
• Arcadian
• Daniel Vaulot

Possibly one of them could help. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I got in the list above (3 trivial edits and 2 reversions to brown algae and a typo fix in Nostocaceae, but I have to disclaim expertise. (I could probably fix articles to stub standard with the aid of Google, but it wouldn't be a rapid process.) Lavateraguy (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

To clear it up, I included 5 authors who write green algae articles, this includes you. Only the last 7 authors, of the bulleted list of 9 should be considered consultants in algae in general, non green algae in particular, the biggest problem area. I think mentioning green algae authors was necessary because these plant authors are probably capable of correcting or verifying articles about the other photosynthetic organisms, whereas general plant authors who don't edit green algae articles may be no better than a general biologist. I missed Rkitko who had a useful higher level taxonomy conversation, but I did not see this writer in the higher level taxonomies I reviewed. Its the higher level taxonomies outside of the green algae that will be most difficult, and I tried to find authors who can handle that. Once these are settled, competent botany writers with a background in marine photosynthetic organisms (if only green algae) could be useful if effort is made to save a large number of articles-this is why both lists are important, potential phycologists and a starter volume of general plant editors. If an effort is made to save, or if a contentious (large number of opposes) AfD is launched, this gives a dozen writers identified as potentially helpful. There are probably many more that helpful editors, but this is just an idea of who might be able to deal with the mess from the start. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It has become very clear that this is too big a screw-up to be fixed piecemeal. I'm scraping a list of articles created by Anybot out of the API now. It will take a while. Come Monday I anticipate posting the biggest bulk AfD nomination in the history of Wikipedia. Hesperian 06:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a bot (crosses fingers) could add a statement to each page stating that it is proposed to delete the page on such and such date (+7days?) due to errors in an automated page creation process, and if anyone thinks that any particular article should be retained they should make their opinion known <somewhere> (here?). This is to avoid deleting any articles that have been fixed and/or extended since creation. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Could this be used, then, to identify meat-edited articles as Kurt Shaped Box calls them? Can these articles be identified? --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Anybot's algae articles

I've listed Anybot's algae articles for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anybot's algae articles. Thank you. Hesperian 00:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Arecales into Arecaceae

Someone proposed a merger of Arecales into Arecaceae - discus here. No idea myself, just thought I'd place here and get as many folks as possible to figure it out...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It seemed reasonable, given the fact that we combine genus + species for monotypic genera. But then I started wondering - how do we deal with families that consist of only a single genus? Guettarda (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that monospecific genus and monogeneric families are currently both at the genus level. I'm not clear what the status for orders is, but I seem to recall it is toward placement at family-level. In any case, a merger is certainly appropriate, unless there is significant variation in how the order is circumscribed. Circeus (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Bot to automatically italicize titles

If you're interested there is a request to approve a bot to automatically italicize titles with a parameter and by removing the name field in the taxobox. [19]

The bot owner asked for approval although the issue is still being discussed in another project. [20]

This might be an issue that leads to problems. The bot owner seeks and gains approval although article writers are still discussing whether it is a good thing or not. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This involves coding and input from the bot owner who wrote anybot, but does not seem to involve plant or tree of life editors. If bot owners are discussing changing how plant and animal pages on wikipedia are coded this should probably included input from the wikipedia plant and animal community. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hyperbole. The bot has not be approved for the task yet and the bot-owner said he will hold off until the RFC wraps up. I've also seen several ToL editors express their opinions. The RFC, however, appears to have hit a snag. A bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinions have been expressed against italicization from editors who don't seem to understand the scientific nomenclatural need to italicize certain taxa if we can. The RFC has also been muddied by the confusion of two issues: 1) Do you support italic titles in general? and 2) If yes, which articles do you support their use for. There seems to be almost no support for book articles, etc., but split support for taxa vs. no italicization. --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear on the bot board that input from article writers will be considered. The RFC appears to be a tangent. This may be my confusion. From an outside perspective the issue appears to be should the titles be italicized with the parameter or by the field name in the taxobox. This issue could define the utility of using taxonomy boxes on wikipedia. This makes it matter more to writers who create articles on living things.

Plant, animal, and protist editors should decide the issue before a bot is created to do the work. If Martin is having trouble fixing his bot, putting off this discussion of creating another bot might free up time for bot writers, including Martin, to write scripts to fix the algae mess.

Tree of life editors making the decision first could have prevented the major problem with the algae articles: requiring an active go-ahead from those who write the articles before the bots do the work. It puts a burden on the projects to examine the content.

Focus on getting approval first could lead to better algorithms from a well-defined task created by the editors with expertise in the area.

--69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomic to vernacular name

Heads up: Talk:Euphorbia pulcherrima#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

ID by anecdote

Question: Can anybody ID a lichen or moss that, when rubbed on a humid day, will turn red (possibly being mistaken for blood)? It is apparently the source of purported "blood" coming from the decapitated neck of an angel statue at a local cemetery, whose article I'm cleaning up. Want to include the info under an upcoming "Urban legends" section, but would like an ID first. Source is here (Ctrl+F lichen). wadester16 04:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A query on creating articles

Hello, I work on the "Articles for Creation" team and we've recently come across a request for an article on a rose, but I am not sure if the subject is notable enough for it's own article, nor am I sure the website used as a source for the article is reliable or not. So what better place to come to than here? Anyone care to give me an opinion on this article 'Rosa' Precious Platinum, either here or on my talkpage?

I don't see any obvious grounds for asserting notability, but regardless the spelling should be Rosa 'Precious Platinum'. However there is precedent for including rose cultivars('Abraham Darby', 'Alain', 'American Beauty', 'Angel Face') ...) - see also Category:Rose cultivars Lavateraguy (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we want Category:Rose cultivars linked into rose somehow? Lavateraguy (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Melburnian (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The website appears to be reliable and is used as a reference for other rose cultivar articles. The name Rosa 'Precious Platinum' is accepted in the Royal Horticultural Society[21] database and is is mentioned in a multitude of books [22]. The subject does warrant an article under its own name in my opinion under Rosa 'Precious Platinum'.Melburnian (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, I will create it under the suggested name. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to thank everyone who chimed in, I'll make sure to ask this project again if I come across more plant related articles in the Articles for Creation process.MPJ-DK (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hitchcockella

The article Hitchcockella is incredibly brief. Could someone please take a look and possibly expand it? Read more at Talk:Hitchcockella. DotComCairney 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dalibarda repens

Fertile flowers?

This evening I took what I think is a very nice photo of Dalibarda repens. All the photos the Commons has of this plant were taken by me either last year or this year. This is the first nice looking blossom I had a shot at this year, and my photography skills have improved somewhat since I uploaded my first one. White petals in shady forests are challenging to me. I thought it would be nice to update the article to use the better photo, and I noticed that the article had been moved from Dalibarda repens to plain old Dalibarda (it's apparently a monotypic genus). So my question: Should I recategorize all the photos I put on the Commons as plain old Dalibarda, or just leave them alone? --Jomegat (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a question to ask on Commons, and I'm not sure how they handle such things. Putting the images there at the species ought to be fine. On the English Wikipedia, the page for a monotypic plant genus is placed at the genus name, but that's only a guideline here on the English Wikipedia. Other language Wikipedias may not follow the same guideline, so categorization at Commons does not have to mirror what we do here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Commons policies, and as EncycloPetey says, it could well be different from how we name articles. I'd leave the photos where they are, unless they seem to be causing a problem. Kingdon (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I was reading here that though D. repens is locally endangered or threatened in many areas, it is globally secure (unless I'm misreading this article)? I assume that means the taxobox should be updated to reflect the global status? --Jomegat (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I thought that was strange too. Kingdon (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Having read up on this plant a bit, and learning that it has self-pollinating flowers hidden beneath the foliage, I thought it might be a good idea to seek some out (since they are blooming in my woods right now). Here's what I found, but before I add that to the article, I thought I should have it fact checked here first? --Jomegat (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Input from Venus Flytrap experts needed...

(I also posted this over at WP:CPLANTS - posting it here for more eyes, as that project's talkpage seems to be fairly low-traffic.)

File:Insectivorous Plants Drew's copy.jpg

The passage from Drew's book

Hi there. Could someone who's in the know about Venus Flytraps, so to speak come and take a look at this question at the Science Reference Desk? We have a user (Drew R. Smith) with a copy of Darwin's "Insectivorous Plants" which states that VFTs are native to the rainforests of South America - he's scanned the passage in question for us. Now, another user's copy of the same book states that the VFT is "found only in the eastern part of North Carolina", which would seem to agree with WPs Venus Flytrap article and most of the web, from what I can gather.

I'm bringing this here, just in case Drew and his book are correct and WP is helping to propagate a 'common misconception', based on an error in an early edition of Darwin's text. I/We'd appreciate your thoughts on this issue. Cheers. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you dig into Internet Archive you can find several editions of the book, so you could look into the history. (The 2nd edn of 1888, edited by Francis Darwin, says (pg 231) North Carolina.) Lavateraguy (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For confirmation of the facts Weakley's Flora says "This monotypic genus is endemic to the Coastal Plain of NC and SC; it has been introduced in various places, including panhandle FL, Yancey County in the mountains of NC, and s. NJ, where it persists and spreads to varying degrees". Lavateraguy (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted over at the relevant discussion on this, as well. I really want to know where this book came from. Unauthorized reproduction that introduced an error? Does that look like hand typesetting or is that dot-matrix printer? I really haven't got a clue why a book labeled Insectivorous Plants by Charles Darwin would have this error, except for the inaccuracies introduced with each reprinting. Someone got sleepy while typesetting! --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Rain forest"? In a book that was published in 1875? IIRC, the term "rain forest" was coined by Schimper in Pflanzengeographie which, according to our article on Schimper was published in 1898. Guettarda (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What would Darwin likely have referred to it as? Jungle? Thanks for the input and clearing-up-of-the-issue here and at the Sci Desk, by the way... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. I would recommend asking Dave Souza - he really knows his Darwin scholarship. Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Google Books has the 1915 edition of Darwin's Insectivorous Plants. It says North Carolina.[23] --Una Smith (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, gbooks ALSO has the 1875 edition: "It [...] is found only in the eastern part of North Carolina, growing in damp situations." (p. 286). Circeus (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Darwin Online has full scans of three editions of this book [24] Guettarda (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Note, this image was later found to be a forgery. User:Drew_R._Smith was blocked for thirty-one days for falsifying a reference. APL (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

ID help please

Hi there, spotted this little guy when out for a walk the other day, the head is roughly 7cm long and it was on the end of a single stem maybe 25-35cm off the ground, I'm pretty sure it's a pterostylis species of some description but a precise ID would be greatly appreciated. Regards. Flying Freddy (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be Pterostylis nutans. Melburnian (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic, thankyou. Could you tell me, are there any particular diagnostic features that would be sensible to try to photograph when taking pictures of orchids? Flying Freddy (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This University of Tasmania site gives a key to orchid genera. If you explore this, you will discover the defining characteristics for orchids in Tasmania, and therefore which characteristics need to be captured in one or more photos. A closeup photo of the flower (showing all the features labelled on the orchid flowers information page) and another of the whole plant is a good starting point. Melburnian (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Project Ipomoea

I've took the liberty on making an Ipomoea wikiproject.It's still in a proposal stage but if we have enough people joining the project and editting the page,we'll be able to make it into a complete project. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Project_Ipomoea --Alocaluser (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My advice to you is that wikiprojects only work when they are organising existing collaboration. If you find your talk page is full of discussion about Ipomoea articles with the same people; if your user subspace is full of collaborative lists, notes and drafts on Ipomoea; if you already have a group of people committed to an ambitious goal with respect to coverage of this topic; then, and only then, a wikiproject is a good idea. If you're missing these things, your wikiproject will prove a pointless waste of time. The "if you build it they will come" theory has been proven wrong time and time again. Hesperian 11:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I see you have less than a hundred edits, of which just five are to a single Ipomoea article. I highly recommend you wait a few months, to see if Wikipedia is really your thing, and find out whether you're happy focussing on this topic in the long term. Hesperian 11:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it is via a wikiproject, thanks for your contributions to Ipomoea articles and I hope you keep at it. I don't know what the best sources are for this area, but a quick look around found: Flora of China treatment of 29 species found in China, phylogenetic analysis of subgenus Quamoclit, various online papers concerning various species. Kingdon (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Natural history and the "Natural History Network"

The article on natural history has a short paragraph (under Societies) on an organisation called the Natural History Network. It seems out of place there to me; see the talk page for full comment. Briefly, I don't think it's important enough to be in such a general article. Since the talk page over there seems pretty quiet, I thought I'd drop a line here before removing the content. Feedback, please.

Pertusaria (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

ID Question

Saw this on the Science Ref Desk, thought it might be a fun question

I was hacking down plants with a machete in my brothers backyard today and I came across a very tall, non-woody-stemmed plant (about the size of a small tree). It has a reddish-purple stem and huge, long, pointed ovoid leaves. The stem is very thick (two or three inches at the base)and when I hack it open, the pith inside is divided into little segments all the way up by little white membranes. The tiny, white flowers near the top have five petals and seem to be in the process of turning into little green berries. I don't have the slightest clue what this plant might be and I'd really like to find out. Any help would be appreciated.

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Strange_plant_in_northeast_Kansas.

Guettarda (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like Solanum nigrum on steroids. Hesperian 23:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Anybot redux (post AfD)

See User:Kurt Shaped Box/Anybot edits for an updated list of the AnyBot edited articles remaining following the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anybot's algae articles. During the course of the AfD, 69.226.103.13 indicated that many of the redirects created by Anybot (which were not included in the discussion) were also erroneous. Now, I'm not an expert in this field, so I don't know if this is a 'very big ask' or not - but I'd appreciate it if the 'algae guys' here could have a look at the list and indicate which of the redirects (as far as I can tell, everything on the list from Signiosphaera downwards) are in need of deletion or re-targeting. Or alternatively provide a list of the redirects that are correct (if that's any easier). I'm happy and willing to spend time on cleaning this mess up - if you'd be so kind as to give me an indication as to what exactly needs doing here. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I started cleaning the mess up, but there are bots tagging me as an abusive vandal and interfering with my work, so I can't do it. The articles require either a phycologist or a general plant editor comfortable with the green algae-high level knowledge editing, but not botable, and not a general editor, they have to be individually checked. Most are redirects. Some were created by others and edited by anybot. Some were created only by anybot and not deleted for some reason. I found one that still called a cyanobacterium an algae. The bad ones are obvious and you can see they're bad by clicking on the algae base link. The redirects cna be deleted or removed. User:Kurt Shaped Box will delete articles directly if you need them deleted and can't do it yourself. The list is about 889 articles. It would take little work to clean up the list.

But, I'm not going to do it and be labeled an abusive vandal for my hard work. The very least wikipedia can do to keep experts is not insult them. That should not have to be said.

--69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)