Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

Dodder and Poodle Dog Brush

I have extensive photographs and detailed background in to a number of plant species which are extant in the San Gabriel Mountains, complete with adverse effects on humans who are exposed to some of them, details and photographs of which are largely missing from Wikipedia pages.

Unfortunately people keep deleting my updates, stupidly doing so because they did not like my account user names. This is unacceptable behavior and yet the Little Ceasers on Wikipedia get away with it, making participating in updating obsolete or incomplete entries an effort that I find something increasingly pointless.

I'm going to be updating the entries for Dodder (Cuscuta epithymum) and Poodle Dog (Turricula parryi) one more time and if anybody deletes the updates or complains about my user name, that will be the last time I attempt to participate. NotSoOldHippy (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There should not be a problem if you have references . Hardyplants (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you pointed us to some of your edits under other user names, we could better evaluate why you've run into problems.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Classification in taxoboxes

The guidelines at Template:Taxobox/doc#Classification are that only important levels of the classification should be listed. For typical angiosperms, which parts of the classification are worth mentioning? E.g. the genus Glycyrrhiza now has 10 levels of classification, which makes it hard to see what's what. Secondly, do we have a standard way of describing the upper levels of the classification? Do we use 'Angiosperms', 'Angiospermae' or 'Magnoliophyta'? Should we still describe things as being in the Magnoliopsida? And should these be there as '(unranked)', which looks a bit messy, but I understand follows APG, or as 'Division' & 'Class'? Thanks, Thomas Kluyver (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

For flowering plants, we generally include all major clades, all taxa of major rank up to kingdom, and any taxa of minor rank up to the next major rank. So for a genus, one would normally include the kingdom, the main APG clades, order, family, and whatever suprageneric ranks seem sensible.

The only widely accepted modern arrangement of the angiosperms is the (latest) APG system, which simply uses informally-named unranked clades above the rank of order. Thus Magnoliophyta is old hat. Angiospermae Lindl. is validly published but cannot be used as a name for the angiosperms. The clade name Angiospermae is not validly published, as the PhyloCode hasn't even been formally adopted yet. Really all we can do is adopt the informal clade names used by APG-III: names like "angiosperms", "eudicots", and "rosids".

The use of '(unranked)' was arrived at after some discussion. I expect it represents an uncomfortable consensus. If you have a better idea, feel free to put it forward.

Hesperian 11:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The only things I would add regard exceptions to the rule, which could be made a bit more clear in the template documentation. We typically omit "minor" taxa ranks, such as subfamily and tribe unless their presence is required for understanding of their placement. E.g., we would normally include the subfamily Bombacoideae only on genus articles (unless there are other minor ranks like tribes in between subfamily and genus) and exclude that rank on species articles, but one could argue it's important to include on species articles because readers could be confused by the move from Bombacaceae to Malvaceae. I've even seen anon. editors change it from the current family back to Bombacaceae if the subfamily link isn't there to help them understand the family was reduced to subfamily rank under Malvaceae. I agree (unranked) looks messy, but it was the limitation of the template code at the time that lead us to that decision. You could use the new {{Automatic taxobox}}, which allows for implementation of "clade" for the higher APG III ranks (see a working example here: Levenhookia chippendalei), but the template is still in the works and I would caution against using it before consensus has been reached to use it instead. Rkitko ^(talk) 11:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. On exceptions to the rule, I find the bamboos a particularly enlightening example. Every bamboo species taxobox should include tribe Bambuseae, simply because the bamboos are such a familiar and well-defined group that mentioning it greatly aids understanding of the topic. Hesperian 11:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. So, on Glycyrrhiza, I would assume that "Subtribe: Glycyrrhizinae" is uninformative and can go? (According to Galegeae, the subtribe only contains that one genus). Since the subtribe and family both have articles, I would err on the side of caution and leave them (unless I knew that they were uninformative). Thomas Kluyver (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, here's what I would do. Since the subtribe only contains that one genus, I would bold it in the taxobox and create a redirect from Glycyrrhizinae to Glycyrrhiza (this is what we do with all monotypic taxa); thus, both items in bold let the reader know that that is the article for both the subtribe and the genus since they are the same thing. The subfamily can go, but make sure it mentions the subfamily in the lead. In this case, I would leave the tribe, since it's the direct minor rank above subtribe. Rkitko ^(talk) 12:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent naturalized flora category CfDs

Hey, folks. Not sure if all of you noticed, but there were two flora category-related CfDs that just closed.

1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 1#Category:Biota naturalised in Australia - result was keep.
2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 1#Category:Naturalized flora of Alabama - result was delete. The reasoning was that while Australia is rather isolated and deserves such categories, places like Alabama are not and therefore don't; part of the rationale rested on the "OMG CATEGORY CLUTTER" argument, which I argued against. One !voting editor even mentioned the awful (for us) precedent of the 2007 CfD that got rid of all the state/province categories for fauna and upmerged to regions. I just hope that editor doesn't cast his eye onto the flora categories long enough to consider putting them up for CfD. Anyway, to the point: Is the deletion of Category:Naturalized flora of Alabama a slippery slope? Since there wasn't much discussion at the CfD, do you think it was a decent category (if I recall correctly, it had about 50 articles in it)? Should we put it up for deletion review? Just some thoughts, there... Appreciate your input. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 11:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As a bit of background, the sub-categories of Category:Biota naturalised in Australia took a bit of a battering two years ago, with all state categories being wiped out.[1] Melburnian (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Italics in article titles

This RfC—Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Wikipedia:Requests for comment:Use of italics in article titles—originally began as a discussion to consider expanding the use of italics in article titles beyond a few "special cases, one example of which is taxonomic names of genera and species." Now, one of the options being offered is the elimination of all italics in article titles. Since most plant taxa articles are currently using italics, Plant Project members might be interested in this RfC. First Light (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently public domain article about herbivory - can we use?

ELS (Encyclopedia of Life Sciences) has a recent article called "Plant Interactions with Herbivores" . We already have an article on herbivory which is basically the same topic under a different name, so I don't think direct upload is an option, and the PDF itself is rather ELSy, so just the text would have to be used and edited to be less so. However, it's quite a long article and has a big section on the effects of herbivores - is this something we could copy and paste and edit into an article?

ELS must have more articles labelled public domain too - might be worth a look. They must be PD because they were made by USDA etc employees as part of their work. Richard001 (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this one is public domain. This one article is exactly labelled "This is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the United States of America." and can be used on wikipedia. / Similar example of work by US government published is a journal is article by Weijerman et al 2008. used for Acanthophora spicifera. Also in this example is its public domain status clearly written inside. --Snek01 (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Public domain does not mean that we can use it without proper attribution - great care needs to be taken to avoid plagiarism. How do we credit the source & original author, while still allowing for modification? This needs to be very clear, and needs to be presented in a way that cannot be obscured by later authors. Guettarda (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Usually attribution templates such as these are used. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Science name first in articles

Why is it in some of the articles that the scientific name is first? An example would be Blue Spruce the article name is Picea pungens who is going to type that in other than a plant expert? This goes against WP:COMMONNAME as there are more references for blue spruce out there than Picea pungens (720,000 google searches vs 120,000 for scientific name excluding the word wikipedia) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read Wikipedia:Article titles? It specifically note: "Sometimes these [naming conventions relating to specific subject domains] recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name[,] as in the case of the conventions for flora and medicine." And have you actually read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)? The page actually explains why things are this way. Circéus (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See wp:Bite. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy to apply the rationale to this particular example, if it helps you understand the situation better. Picea pungens has several common names including Blue Spruce, Colorado Spruce, Colorado Blue Spruce, Water Spruce, Silver Spruce, Green Spruce, and Pino Real. Blue Spruce may well be the best known of these, but some sources call the species "Colorado Spruce", and reserve the common names "Blue Spruce" and "Colorado Blue Spruce" for the variety Picea pungens var. glauca, which is the one with the most obviously blue foliage. I've also seen an old paper that called the species "Colorado Spruce" and reserved "Blue Spruce" for Picea pungens var. hoopsii, though Hoopsii is now widely considered a cultivar rather than a variety. Thus "Blue Spruce" is ambiguous and Blue Spruce really ought to be a disambiguation page. This is typical of the ambiguity and imprecision present in common names, even those that seem perfectly precise and unambiguous to you. Hesperian 23:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

B-class article review

Just gone through bird articles - biggest issue WRT inaccurate article ratings (I think) is old B-class which lack inline references. Many can be rerated as C. I started on plants but only got up to 'Acer'. Acorus Agave inclusive..if anyone feels like any wikignoming...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Did a few. Now up to Ammophila (Poaceae) Finished A. Guettarda (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Convenience link to the cat Category:B-Class plant articles Guettarda (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone plz help me determining two species?

I made these two pictures in an arboretum (that is, I don't know where the two plants are native to): [2] és [3]. Before uploading them into Commons (not so much for botanical interest, but for the article about the village the arboretum is located in), I would like to make sure what kind of plants these are. The first one looks like a species of the Verbascum genus, and the second one is possibly a Cotinus. I would really appreciate any help. --Oguszt (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There are only two Cotinus species, so it might not be too hard to work out which one is involved here.

You're right...File:Blush.png So the second one is a Cotinus coggygria. --Oguszt (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree about Verbascum, but I am NOT familiar with the genus as a whole or its potential lookalike. Circéus (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

17 is a Verbascum, and it could be narrowed down even further but I do not think that you need to, just link to the genus. Hardyplants (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Verbascum blattaria (some images).--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. I think I'll stick to the genus. --Oguszt (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Synonym for Equisetum

When I was growing up in Iowa there was a plant we called puzzlegrass since you can take apart the sections and put them back together. I'm pretty sure it was a spp. of Equisetum but can't find any information to verify. Does anyone know if horsetail and puzzlegrass are synonyms? If they are shouldn't there be a mention in the etymology section. 96.240.142.146 (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like "puzzlegrass" is one of the common names for Equisetum, according to a few sources.[4][5] So I've added it as one of the common names in the article. First Light (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Plant identification

I just noticed this new article, which claims to be about plant identification, but mostly duplicates information at dichotomous key and likely is no more than a how-to guide already (?) represented elsewhere at Wikibooks or Wikiversity. Delete? Slash and burn? A useful topic if done correctly? Rkitko ^(talk) 11:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There should be a way to ether merge the two. Have you pointed out to the author that there is an dichotomous key article? I wonder if they know about it. Plant identification is an important topic that covers more than just keys. Hardyplants (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the editor is aware of dichotomous key, but taking another look, it doesn't overlap too much. My main concern is that the article as it currently stands is mostly outside the scope of Wikipedia as it's trying to be a useful guide rather than a descriptive article on plant identification, though there's a small bit about history. I can imagine a few other topics to be included in such an article, like the difficulties associated with some plant identifications that require microscopic analysis of seed, etc. I have not yet engaged the editor in discussion; I thought I would bring it up here first and get other reactions. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's actually a series of pages - very much a WikiBook or Wikiversity-type project: Key of monocotyledons, Heteromerae, Thalamiflorae, Bicarpellatae, Disciflorae, Calyciflorae, Gamopetalae, Inferae, Monochlamydae. All are linked by a self-referential "This page is part of the Plant identification series of Wikipedia pages". Guettarda (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

plant identification/picture for article

There is a plant on my land which i unfortunately landed on last week. It may have given me some sort of allergic reaction, but that's besides the point. I'm posting to see if anyone can identify it.

This nasty prickly sucker

. If you can I will add the picture to the corresponding article. Thanks very much. User: schyler (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It is Cnidoscolus texanus (Texas Bullnettle). I will begin to make the article. I am no botanist, so if you at all can, please help. Thanks! schyler (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE peer-review the new article. Like I said, I am no botanist. Thanks! schyler (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Milkweed latex gasoline

Someone strung a bunch of plant word together and created an article. Someone tried to delete it bijt others disagree. The article is a just a joke, but the editors debating its deletion don't realize it and are suggesting the nonsense be merged into perfectly good plant articles. Is there anyone here with aujthority who can stop this 8 days of time wasting at Milkweed Latex Gasoline? JaRoad (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Hydrocarbon plant? Milkweed Latex Gasoline is a redirect that article? Milkweed Latex would be a better article title than Milkweed Latex Gasoline if there was ever to much information for the Asclepias page, Hardyplants (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone moved it, cleaned it up a little so it's no longer gibberish. Guettarda (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the only source for that page talks about Euphorbiaceae. There is a shortage of reliable sources for such a title, but there is a lot of sources on latex, which includes hydrocarbon fuels and other energy uses. Hardyplants (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There were a lot of articles. They use the name "petreoleum plant" more frequently than "hydrocarbon plant," but the former is already a redirect to a euphorb. I would rather have the article under the first title but I'm editing on an unfamiliar device and can't figure out how to edit the wordy templates to request moves. This article isn't about latex, and there are non-Euphorbia hydrocarbon plants, bnut I'm slow on a keyboard, particularly an unfamiliar one. Moving it to petroleum plant and making h ydrocarbon plant a redirect would be useful. JaRoad (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a petroleum plant around here and it process light crude oil into other hydrocarbon products, if you get my drift. Hardyplants (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How about Plants as fuel source or some such other title? Hardyplants (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Plants are fuel sources in far more ways than deliberately converting their terpenolids into gasoline- like products. For example wood or charcoal or corn biofuel would fit into plants as fuel source, but this topic is about terpenoids from latex producing milkweeds and spurges, it's not about all plant fuel sources. JaRoad (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My question would be - Why do we need a separate article for this topic? Why not put a line of text in appropriate plant article about uses and add a section to an article like biofuel or a topic covering alternative fuels. Hardyplants (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Basic Phytology Articles Still in Stub Form

I noticed that the articles Pith, Tylosis (botany), and Compartmentalization Of Decay In Trees are still in a stub-like form or suffering from lack of attention. This is just an example of the many botany-related articles on wikipedia receiving little to no attention. I noticed they are classed as Forestry articles (Tylosis is not categorized at all), even when they certainly belong to the Plants WikiProject --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Plants

There are many plant articles with Latin names of the species, which have the Wikipedia Pennsylvania template, but often no other state templates, even though they are found over a wide range of northeastern states, and even into Canada and as far south as Georgia. For example, Acer spicatum, a species of maple tree, has a Pennsylvania template, but is found from Canada to northern Georgia. My question is whether the Pennsylvania template should be applied to such articles at all. What do editors contributing to Plant articles think?--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's really a decision for WP:Pennsylvania. If there's a group of editors from that project who want to maintain and improve articles on all plants that occur in Pennyslvania then that's great, leaves the templates there. If the interest is not there then perhaps the templates can be restricted to plants with symbolic association such as Tsuga canadensis and Kalmia latifolia and perhaps endemic species.Melburnian (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Several state WikiProjects do this and it's often just because the "Flora of ..." category for that state is within the category tree that project is interested in. Some add it indiscriminately, others take the time to avoid certain categories like that. I think it can get a bit overwhelming to have multiple state project tags on the talk page, even when it's obvious few of them would be interested in maintaining or expanding flora articles, but I see no reason to remove them unless that state WikiProject decided to do so. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Technical help please

I have writted a brief article on one of Linnaeus's Floras, the Flora of Sweden. I intended giving the article the name of his book which is Flora Svecica, but accidentally gave Sweden a lower case letter 's' - so it is now found under the title Flora svecica. If you search on Flora Svecica then the article pops up OK. but if you have Flora Svecica in the text (like I've just done) then it shows red. Could someone correct the title of the article to Flora Svecica please? Granitethighs 00:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Done Guettarda (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Guettarda - I should have been able to do it myself but had a block.Granitethighs 02:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)