Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Popular pages

Hi, all. The first month's data on the most viewed articles has arrived: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Popular pages. Interesting list of articles at the top. --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Mildly infantile interest in drug-related stuff predicts Salvia divinorum and Cannadis' presence. The pepper is a predictable perennial "quirky" favorite ("hey man, look at this!", also a factor for Salvia divinorum, I'd guess) too, and naturally drags Scoville scale up. Neem and Açai are a bit harder to explain, though... Were they in the news or on the main page? Coriander is another surprise. I'll take the liberty of taking Scoville scale off our retinue. I really don't think it belongs here. Circeus (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Açai has become increasingly popular of late in the US as the advertized ingredient in energy drinks. In my area, the grocery stores have multiple Açai-based drinks now available on the shelves. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What stands out for me is the relative paucity of articles located at their scientific name. Hesperian 04:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

All hands on deck for a bit of pagemoving then...Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am going to interpret the results in a different way, most people are interested in plant parts that have a human use and not so much in the plant its self. Hardyplants (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought that some people might be interested in assessing the unassessed articles. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Star of Bethlehem, Ornithogalum, redirects, disambigs, and hatnotes

See Talk:Ornithogalum#Where to cover "star of bethlehem"? for a discussion which started out as a dispute over hatnotes at Ornithogalum and which now has to do with where the redirect Star of Bethlehem (plant) should point and perhaps other matters. More input would be appreciated, as I'm not sure what is best and I don't know whether the other participant is sure either. Kingdon (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Antirrhinum majus

Would someone please check this change at Antirrhinum majus. I have no idea whether it is a useful change or misguided. Note that someone else made this edit to restore the reference deleted by the first. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Scrophulariaceae is polyphyletic. Antirrhinum belongs to a clade that might be called Plantaginaceae or Veronicaceae depending on how unbendingly you apply the laws of botanical nomenclature. The edit is misguided. See Tank et al. (2006) "Review of the systematics of Scrophulariaceae s.l. and their current disposition" for a review of the whole situation. Hesperian 03:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

infrageneric Epidendrum categories: intervention requested

Today I stumbled upon one of the biggest nomenclatural and stylistic messes I've ever seen on Wikipedia: an entire category tree of infrageneric Epidendrum taxa entitled using trinomial and quadrinomial names, with articles for category text. Exhibit 1: Category:Epidendrum Amphiglotium Schistochila Carinata, which had an entire article on a subsection, with a taxobox, as its category text! I cleaned up the category text, copied it over to Epidendrum subsect. Carinata, moved the category contents into the new category Category:Epidendrum subsect. Carinata, and deleted the misnamed category. I performed this kind of thing on 16 categories in total, along with cleaning up and recategorising numerous articles. It took me two hours, and I was pretty jaded by the end of it.

Now the dude who made the mess is starting to revert me. I have no stomach to go through and explain the principles of nomenclature to this person. This newb is in serious danger of being bitten. I wonder if someone who is in a better mood than me might like to intervene.

Hesperian 13:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work cleaning those up. Must have taken patience. Anyway, I noticed that I do at least one of the things the newb and didn't realize it wasn't desirable. I've been producing stubs of Drosera lately that include in the taxobox:

| subgenus = ''[[Drosera subg. Ergaleium|Ergaleium]]''

instead of:

| subgenus = [[Drosera subg. Ergaleium|''D.'' subg. ''Ergaleium'']]

I prefer the former for the sake of brevity. Some of those epithets can get long and stretch the taxobox or force it onto another line. I can see the point that it should be associated with it's genus in the name, but I think that's implied by the genus parameter above it. Further, it's also correct to speak of the subgenus Ergaleium without mentioning the genus if it's understood in context. Am I doing something wrong here? Or is this just your preference and therefore how you standardized those articles? Just a thought. On the newb, your message on his/her talk page was fine. If there's a response, I can help with the newb's behavior if it gets worse. --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If a convention was agreed in this area, then I would follow it. It was necessary to link the names, so I converted the format while I was at it. There are many other issues here, not least of which is the fact that I haven't actually checked that these are legimately published taxa. Given the provenance of the information, it cannot be taken for granted. Hesperian 02:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, a further point - I can't locate these infrageneric names. IPNI doesn't have them and I can't locate any other references that discuss the classification, though I didn't look too hard. Can anyone verify the publication of these names? For example, Epidendrum sect. Planifolia. --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It came out afterwards that Jay is basing all this on an 1870s publication by Reichenbach. <shudder> Hesperian 01:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Eek! I find that Robert L. Dressler's books and articles (despite their cladistic shortcomings) are the best starting point for me when I have to do anything with orchid taxonomy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Content creation bot - input from editors with AnyBot experience requested

A user has proposed a bot called "ContentCreationBot" that will be filling in articles with information from a database, a lot of information all at once. I ask editors who dealt with AnyBot to look over the request for approval and give their input.[1] All editor input invited. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD This bot's work required the deletion of over 5000 articles, a lot of work for administrators. If the articles and information could be pulled from a database successfully it would be good to have the info on wikipedia for its readers. The programmer of this bot is aware of the anybot mess. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Daikon - Native spelling in intro

Hello, I'm seeking your input for Daikon, since you guys are much familiar with MoS and guidelines for plant-related articles than me or other editor named Phoenix7777 (talk · contribs). There is a dispute regarding taking out the native spelling (Japanese) other than English from the intro. As far as I've known, any therm that become common English names/words, such native names are not stated in intro. However, Phoenix7777 argues otherwise, so your input would be much appreciated. Thanks.--Caspian blue 01:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a question first = is Raphanus sativus var. longipinnatus synonymous with Daikon; that is are all Raphanus sativus var. longipinnatus plants called Daikon? Hardyplants (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Good question, and actually, I'm no expert on the variety (or any botanical subjects), so googled it. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, it says so.[2], so does Webster's New World College Dictionary [3]. On the other hand, an reliable site says a lot of other common names of the variety.[4] One site[5] says daikon refers to Raphanus sativus var. longipinnatus Bailey. One university source[6] calls Raphanus sativus var. longipinnatus, "Chinese radish". One other source calls it just "radish"[7], one calling it "daikon", but radish being accompanied.[8]. However, well, my request is not to change the title, by the way.--Caspian blue 07:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is an interesting site covering the common names:[9] it seems that Daikon is a common name like "radish" and that other compound names exist that utilize Daikon in them for other related types. I would personally include all the common names listed, maybe not in the intro but somewhere in the article. If the Japanese name is commonly referred to in good sources, then I would include it in the intro. Lets see what others say about this. Hardyplants (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Anybot cleanup - the final phase...

Could any editors with an interest in seaweeds and algae/plankton please take a look at User:Kurt Shaped Box/Anybot edits? These are the remaining redirects created by the malfunctioning Anybot (most of them seem to be non-English synonyms for various species) and many of them (the vast majority?) are likely either complete nonsense, or pointing to the wrong articles.

I plan to delete the remainder of the redirects one week from today, so if there are any there on the list which you feel are worth saving, I'd appreciate it if you could indicate this here for me.

Consider this as a 'last call for action' before I carry out the final phase of cleanup. Thanks very much. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on cleaning up the brown algae in general. The following redirects look OK, because they appear to be largely (if not completely) synonymous with the genus they redirect to (AlgaeBase doesn't provide complete info for these taxa):

• Hafgygia, Carpacanthus, Dashi kombu (Japanese edible seaweed), Limu honu & Limu-kala (Hawaiian names), Sargassum weed, Gulf weed, and a few others.

However, there are a lot of "kombu" redirects in there, and most point to the wrong genus. The Laminariaceae underwent a major taxonomic revision not too long ago and many species of Laminaria were moved to other genera, especially the resurrected Saccharina. As a result, a lot of work would be needed to be sure those redirects are pointing at the right genus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the entries you've vouched for from the list. Much appreciated for that. So, which others are worth keeping? Feel free to edit the list directly, if that's any easier for you. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Horse chestnut

Someone just moved Aesculus hippocastanum to Horse chestnut tree and now there is a proposal to move Horse chestnut tree to Horse chestnut. See Talk:Horse_chestnut_tree#Recent_move. --Una Smith (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevant talk has moved to Talk:Aesculus hippocastanum#Recent_move. --Una Smith (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons Image of the Day

The Image of the Day at Commons is a Polistes dominulus wasp on a "Lilium" (see right). However, that "Lilium" doesn't look like any species I've ever seen in the genus, since they don't usually have a basal rosette like that. Anyone see enough to pin a genus on this? (my guess is something in the Ruscaceae.) --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it probably a young Lilium plant prior to the stem elongating. [10]

[11] [12] Melburnian (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User:The Article Creator

Hi, all. I noticed this user rapidly creating plant stubs like Arnicastrum that only lists IPNI as a reference. I explained why this was not desirable on the editor's talk page; I was also mulling over the idea of bringing these to AfD, but I don't have the time now. Anyone else think they need to be deleted? Mostly full list can be seen at the recent User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult. S/he must have been using some sort of script to assist in creation. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Although there happens to be Arnicastrum guerrerense, there is a very high probability of this process adding thousands of unnecessary and unresolved synonyms to Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the names are currently accepted, there seems to be problems with the articles - the first one I looked at was Arnoseris, which says "The Arnoseris is a species of Flowering-plants that belongs to the subfamily Asteraceae" - I count 2 factual errors (should be genus and family), 1 grammatical error (the initial definite article should be omitted) and 3 orthographical errors (non-italicisation of Arnoseris and capitalisation and hyphenation of flowering plant); the pluralisation of flowering plant may or may not be correct. There's no wikilinks, taxobox or category either. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

... and no full stop at the end of the sentence. Hesperian 23:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am done with creating articles about plants I'm no good at it anyway.The Article Creator (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The alternative is to learn from criticism, and become better. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held. This is to debate the removal of the passage permitting individual WikiProject and other naming conventions to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 02:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a gross misrepresentation of the policy changes. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. The above biased notification is an attempt to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a discussion unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Don't be fooled. The proposed wording change is shown at the RFC linked in my post above. The removal of the "exceptions" phrase is a very significant change. The policy never stated that it consisted of "rules" before, and it still doesn't. However it remains policy. Simply stating a personal view that titling a section "principles" changes the status of the policy page, is one not even accepted by many editors on Hesperians side. There is already an attempt to use the principle of no exceptions to the "use common name" policy to radically change the Naming conflict page, and one of the proposers of this change has indicated that the guidance on flora is also targetted. The change is in my view an attempt to impose a rigid, top-down policy on naming which ignores what wikipedia editors on the ground find most useful. Xandar 03:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You heard it here first, my friends. After all this, after all this, after all this, I've suddenly decided that WP:NC (flora) is in violation of the "use the most common names" rule, and must be overturned. ;-) Hesperian 03:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

I've requested Rhizosphere (ecology) is moved to Rhizosphere please see my reasoning here. Thanks Smartse (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A few IDs

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  4

I've got no idea what 1 is. I found it sprouting the other day in Mount Field National Park on top of a fallen log which had moss growing on it. Probably a meter or so from the ground. The seed was roughly the size of a walnut. I have a picture of the bottom somewhere if needed. I think 2 is possibly an Anemone. It was fairly low to the ground. 4 I a moss, but I'm not sure how straight forward it is to narrow down. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(1): looks like a seed form a Aesculus species. (2): is a flower of anemone coronaria. Hardyplants (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree for 1, but I wouldn't expect to find Aesculus in the middle of a national park, unless there is an Australian species that I couldn't find. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that seed looks exactly like the buckeyes I used to play with as a kid - scar, coat, and all. Check on introduced species known in the area, also perhaps there are other genera in Sapindaceae that have similar seeds (Alectryon?) Stan (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a possibility of Aesculus species being present in a national park. In Australia, exotic trees were sometimes planted in national parks in picnic areas or viewing areas or as avenue plantings in times past. Melburnian (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is true around the visitor center of this park. I wouldn't expect it to be the case where this picture was taken though, kilometres away. Perhaps someone carried it in and placed it there, where the high moisture caused it to sprout. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(3) appears to be Hesperantha coccinea. Melburnian (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that the same as Schizostylis coccinea yes it is: 10:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Hardyplants (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just me being curious: what exactly is #4 growing on? Circeus (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Essentially a cross-section cut of a tree used as a shelf for pot plants. Same thing seems to grow on all sorts of stuff though. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re #4: It looks to me like Bryum or something in the Bryaceae, but I can't be certain. I'm not familiar with the list of Australian moss genera, and don't have a key. Even if I did, I wouldn't be able to reliably ID the moss without peristome and leaf characteristics. I can't tell from the photo whether the branch leaves are costate or not, and whether the leaf cells have papillae, are rhomboid, etc. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

These should all be (tasmanian natives):

• 
  5 - Mortimer Bay, South Arm, Tasmania, Australia
• 
  6 - Mortimer Bay, South Arm, Tasmania, Australia
• 
  7 - Mortimer Bay, South Arm, Tasmania, Australia
• 
  7 - Mortimer Bay, South Arm, Tasmania, Australia
• 
  7 - Mortimer Bay, South Arm, Tasmania, Australia

They are geocoded etc. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(5) Pimelea sp.

(6) Glossodia major[13]

(7) Leptomeria drupacea [14]--Melburnian (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)