Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Miracle fruit or Synsepalum dulcificum

See Talk:Synsepalum dulcificum#Moving this article to Synsepalum dulcificum was incorrect for a discussion of moving Synsepalum dulcificum to its common name Miracle fruit. --Bejnar (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This has evolved (devolved?) into a content dispute over whether any common name other than miracle fruit is accepted. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Unidentified Rosaceae.jpg

Can anyone identify this? If so, I'll request that the image be renamed for accuracy. Thanks, —fetch·comms 02:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a rose cultivar, but it's difficult to identify further as there are tens of thousands in existence.Melburnian (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Darn, ah well. Thanks for the response! —fetch·comms 02:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Plant ID

• 
• 

This volunteer in the garden hitched a ride in some Western U.S. soil or from a nursery, so its origin is unknown. It reaches about 2 ft. tall +, leaves have lush full growth, many flowers bloom throughout the growing season, though they aren't spectacular, until it dies to the ground from frost. Herbaceous perennial. No fragrance to flowers or leaves (which are smooth and a bit lighter in color than my poor photo shows). Growing in almost full shade. For scale, the flower stalk shown is 3 in. long. ? First Light (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Try Corydalis lutea syn Pseudofumaria lutea. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that's the culprit. First Light (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You say it grows "about 2 ft. tall +", If it realy grows that tall then its not likly to be Pseudofumaria lutea but one of the other yellow flowering Corydalis. The inflorescence seems to be to crowded to be that species also. So how tall is it? Hardyplants (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmph, I'd have to go back and measure the height, as I was only guessing. It's in a not-very-close garden, and I won't be there until next week. It could have been a bit less than 2 ft., but I'll give a measurement here later. The plant form and habit certainly looked like the one mentioned, except for this one possibly having more and tighter flowers, as you say. First Light (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I bet it's around 15 inches at the most, then it is Pseudofumaria lutea, the foliage is a right for that species, since most of the other yellowing flowering species that I have seem have different leaves. In the fall do the plants like to form mats of foliage on top of the ground instead of being upright- that's one give away for Pseudofumaria lutea Hardyplants (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about forming a mat, but the foliage and branches are awfully floppy and loose. First Light (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Scientific measurements were taken this time, and the tallest is 26 in. It's up against a rock wall and supported by a couple of other plants, so it could be an outlier. There was another one free of support, and against a wall, that was 18 in. Most were 10-16 in. The form, habit, and leaves certainly look like Corydalis lutea—is there another species that looks similar but taller? Thanks, First Light (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Pseudofumaria lutea seems right to me. Melburnian (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Corydalis ochroleuca is similar species, but with softer colored flowers, it can grow in dry soils while Pseudofumaria lutea likes soils with moister. Your plants are within the normal range for Pseudofumaria lutea which is 20 to 40 cm (8-15 inches) tall. Pseudofumaria lutea has fleshy stems, and lacks a tuberouse rootstock, has evergreen foliage, and the plants produce reduced sized leaves in late summer and fall, the foliage is blue-green on the underside and the inflorescence typical has 6 to 16 flowers. Hardyplants (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone - it clearly looks like Pseudofumaria lutea syn. Corydalis lutea. Fleshy stems, blue-green foliage on the underside, and all the photos showing form and habit. Cheers, First Light (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

When are citations needed?

I haven't edited wikipedia in a while, and I've come back and am confused by where citations are requested. For instance, on the mitchella repens page, there's a note saying "citation requested" next to the comment "Adventitious roots may grow at the internodes". Anyone who has seen the plant grow (for example, me) can confirm that this is its standard growth habit. Most vines do this, and its not clear why a particular citation would be needed or why you'd expect anything on-line which is less broad than wikipedia to even mention such a common trait. Maybe this is a broader wikipedia question and not a plant project question. But I see that the guy below may also be struggling with the question of references. Why would you need references to post a photo of a plant? --Puzzlegal (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

On the page Mitchella repens, it looks like the entire growth section is unreferenced, or at least it doesn't have inline citations. Wikipedia requires articles include references to reliable sources for the information contained in those articles. We cannot rely on "Duh, look at the plant" as a reference, as this is original research. The citation needed tag was probably placed throughout that section because it lacked inline citations entirely, so we don't know where the information came from and if it's reliable. I'm not certain I understood the question about the photo either (Puzzlegal originally top-posted this section, so she is referring to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Dodder and Poodle Dog Brush). That went unresolved and I'm still not clear what the editor meant. --Rkitko ^(talk) 15:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi and welcome back - yeah, it's alot more citation-dense these days. Don't forget the audience is worldwide. I have never heard of this plant. Hopefully a bunch of sentences in the description can be sourced to one reference, so it won't quite look so peppered. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The question of fact is whether adventitious roots arise at the internodes. This should be posted on the article's talk page with a note about raising the question on the talk page of the editor adding the fact tag. 97.226.223.120 (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You can also look at this from the perspective of a non-wikipedia-editor and non-plant specialist who is simply reading the article for information. If they see a statement like "Adventitious roots may grow at the internodes", they don't really know if it's true unless there is a citation/reference. Wikipedia's reputation as being reliable is not always the best, and a citation/reference is the best (though not perfect) confirmation that the statement is accurate. Having a reference, hopefully with a link to the reliable source, also enables them to learn more about the adventitious roots and internodes, if they so desire. First Light (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If the "citation needed" referred to the whole section on growth habit it makes more sense. Some of the stuff described (the berries forming from the fusion of two flowers, for instance) is uncommon and not immediately obvious to anyone who looks at the plant. I'm curious, if I took a photo of the plant that displayed the root growth, would that be adequate documentation? (Not that I can do that this season, as I see the plant on vacation, not in my daily travels, but it's something I or others could do.)Puzzlegal (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Duh look at the plant applies to duh look at a picture of the plant. What are you trying to show with the roots anyway? It has a citation now, and the place to discuss an article is on its talk page. Stop by, your help could be useful in improving the article.97.215.178.177 (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

ICBN assist, please

Hey people. I'm trying to figure out what to do with the plant we have on WP as Pentacalia floribunda (which I'm treating as species:Dendrophorbium floribundum for reasons explained on the genus page). Basically, it seems that Cuatrecasas published it (here) as a nomen novum because in his opinion Senecio floribundus (protologue here) was illegitimate, as detailed in a third publication.

I have a hard time following the reasoning, but it seems to me that the Hieronymus name is not illegitimate, much less invalid on account of being a transfer based on a specimen that does not belong to the basionym (I do not know of any provision that applies to such a case, but I'm fairly sure similar cases are cited elsewhere in the Code). If no other reason under the Code apply, then the name otherwise falls firmly under article 52.3, and is thus valid since the type of Vernonia floribunda is excluded, which would make the correct citation of Dendrophorbium floribundum "(Hieron.) Jeffrey" (or "Sch.Bip. ex Hieron."), rather than "(Cuatrec.) Jeffrey"—and the one for the name in Pentacalia "(Hieron.) Cuatrec.".

Am I misunderstanding something here? Really complicated applications of the code give me headaches. Circéus (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

At first sight it would be Dendrophorbium floribundum (Cuatrec.) Cabrera. While I don't see why Senecio floribunda is declared illegitimate, it is apppears to be a nomenclatural synonym of Vernonia floribunda. If the plant to which the names Pentacalia floribunda and Dendrophorbium floribundum are applied is not synonymous with Vernonia floribunda then it is also not synonymous with Senecio floribundus. As I read it Hieronymus incorrectly included Pentacalia floribunda in Vernonia floribunda, and Cuatresecas segregated it, introducing a new name which which happened to share the same epithet. But in that case Cuatresecas's name should have been a sp. nov. not a nom. nov., so perhaps I'm missing something. Checking IPNI, what I'm missing is that there is a Senecio floribundum Wall., which presumably predates and illegitimises the Sch.Bip./Hieron/Sodiro name. But the complexities of the ICBN defeat me as well at times.

To add to the opacity, IPNI has Dendrophorbium floribundum Cuatrec. and Dendrophorbium floribundum (Cuatrec.) C.Jeffrey, with no mention of Cabrera. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Cabrera has no business there. It was my brainfart, now corrected. What strikes me as odd is that Cuatrecasas still refers back to a description that is technically intended to be that of "Vernonia floribunda" (but in fact not of that species). If that description is valid, I'm not clear why the name is not (my difficulties understanding the Latin/German text of Hieronymus admittedly don't help).

I can somehow see the logic: Hieronymus is not actually excluding the type of V. floribunda from his concept (Cuatrecasas is), but rather publishing a redescription based on a specimen that does not belong to it. What muddies things is that he is also publishing the name as a new combination. I can see why the combination (whether invalid or illegitimate) might be unavailable as a basionym, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what provision of the code applies in making it so! Circéus (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If I understand the distinction correctly Hieronymus's name is valid, but illegitimate, being a later homonym of Senecio floribunda Wall.

Senecio floribunda is not available as a basionym per article 53.1. Vernonia floribunda is available as a basionym, but is applied to a different species, so it can't be a basionym of this species. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap! Why did I not think of double-checking that? Cuatrecasas' statement that "S. floribundus was illegitimate under Senecio because it was published as a transfer from the Kunth species which is positively a Vemonia" still makes no sense (especially as he previously wrote Senecio floribundus is "a name which must be considered valid for a different species rather than used for the combination made by Hieronymus."), but now I don't have to take it into account anymore. Thank you so much! Circéus (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Upon further research, it turns out that the Numerical List of Wallich is not considered to constitute valid publication (for starters it includes no descriptions whatsoever), and (at least under that citation) is a nomen nudum under the Code. That puts us back to Square one. Circéus (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. That would seem to make Senecio floribundus a valid and legitimate, but unaccepted, nomenclatural synonym for Vernonia floribunda. But it remains the case that Vernonia floribunda and Pentacalia floribunda are not nomenclatural synonyms (they have different types), so Vernonia floribunda is not the basionym of Pentacalia floribunda. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Sodiro paper (I don't see where Hieronymus' involvement comes from, tho' the next species in the paper is attributed to him) validates a manuscript name by Schultz Bipontinus, but by quoting a prior name (Vernonia floribunda) as a synonym makes it a nomenclatural synonym of that name. Cuatresecas indicates that it was not only Sodiro/Hieronymus, but also Schultz Bipontinus, who treated the specimen as conspecific with Kunth's Vernonia floribunda. Therefore Cuatresecas was the first author to recognise the specumen Sodiro 59/19 as the type of a new species, and Pentacalia floribunda therefore lacks a basionym. Alternatively, if Schultz Bipontinus did not treat it as a synonym of the Vernonia and Wallich's Senecio floribunda is nom inval. nom nud., Cuatresecas could have validated Schultz Bipontinus's name; but he didn't, instead describing the species in a different genus.

• Vernonia floribunda Kunth - valid, legitimate and accepted.
• Senecio floribunda Wall. - nom inval. nom nud.
• Senecio floribunda (Kunth) Sch.Bip. = Vernonia floribunda Kunth - nom inval. - not effectively published.
• Senecio floribunda (Kunth) Sch.Bip. ex Sodiro = Vernonia floribunda Kunth - valid, legitimate, not accepted
• Pentacalia floribunda Cuatrec. non Vernonia florbunda Kunth - valid, legitimate, acceptance variable.

Cuatresecas could have thought that Wallich's name was valid, but it seems more likely that he wasn't using the term illegitimate with full technical rigour. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible hoax

Please see Dulcis foetidus and WT:BIOL#Dulcis foetidus. Ucucha 11:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The plant is obviously bogus. Read [1]. The article should be at least rewritten so as to make absolutely clear that this was a make per tend plant used for a psychology experiment. The article doesn't make this clear enough based on its current wording.Chhe (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this sufficiently notable to keep? I doubt it passes Wikipedia:Notability (events). mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dulcis foetidus, so now is the time to find out if it is notable. It is a recent event, so maybe too soon to know if notable. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Could anyone, please, confirm or deny that Canariums are Olives?

I am Vietnamese who has eaten Canarium fruits (both green and black). When I enter the United States of America, I see Olive fruits (green and black), I eat them, and examine them from outside to inside. I think Canarium fruits and Olive fruits are identical (many sizes), but in Wikipedia, they are totally different plants. I think that is a serious mistake by scientists who studied this plants separately without exchange information by working together. Does anyone have any suggestions on that matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.219.4 (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fide Wikipedia Canarium is a sapindalean rosid, and Olea a lamialean asterid. It's not plausible that botanists could have confused two such phylogenetically divergent cultivated plants, however similar the fruits might be. Look at, for example, the leaves. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

76.221.219.4, please do not add original research to Wikipedia articles as you did here. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ant-plant mutualism

I have been reading an Encyclopedia of Life Sciences article called "Ant-Plant Mutualisms" and I thought it would be good to have an article about ant-plant mutualisms here as well, but then I found we have an the article myrmecophyte, which is very similar territory. Do you think there is room for an additional article on this topic? Or perhaps a broader article instead on ant-plant interactions (there are a few books on this topic) would be better? I'm not volunteering to write one myself, just looking at gaps in our content that we could at minimum add to a needed-pages page. Richard001 (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ant-plant interactions] would be a good topic ,which would then link to the more detailed info in myrmecophyte coverimng that specific area. Mutualism is only part of the story, since some ants are "herbivores". Some use plants to construct nests, other ants kill and clear plants away form their nesting areas, they aid in the spreading of plant pathogens and are also involved in many other interactions that are definitely not mutualistic. Hardyplants (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to start an article on plant-insect interactions first, but I haven't done work on it for ages :( Richard001 (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

An outline article on plant-insect interactions could be done,(if it does not already exist) and would be fertile ground for the production of a large number of more detailed specialty articles. Hardyplants (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

My wikipedia plate if pretty full, but I would be willing to help with sources and some text. Hardyplants (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Flower2.jpg

Hello. Can anyone identify the plant shown in File:Flower2.jpg? Someone thought it might be "Hebe x franciscana". Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This photo was Picture of the day, March 4, 2005. RickJP (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Plant article titles - varieties, subspecies

I cannot find an example of how the title of an article should be for subspecies and varieties. For example, I would like a redirect created for Lychnis triflora var. dawsonii, a nomenclatural synonym of Silene taimyrensis to send it to Silene taimyrensis. Would "Lychnis triflora var. dawsonii" be the correct title for the article? Can someone link me to an example of a variety article and a subspecies article for future reference if there are any tricks? Is this information on the project page? Thanks. --70.57.229.24 (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. This is documented at WP:FLORA#Ranks. I created the redirect for you. If you're really ambitious and are working in a particular genus, you can also categorize the redirects you create in a synonymy category, e.g. Category:Drosera by synonymy. There are examples of articles on actual subsp. and var. taxa listed at the WP:FLORA link. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 19:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the redirect and link. I'm not that ambitious, but Silene would be a good genus for a synonymy category. I just create missing articles here and there. --70.57.229.24 (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Silene is a jungle of synonyms and would be an ambitious undertaking. Hardyplants (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternanthera sissoo

Came across this article in my goal of assessing some of our articles today. It's not in IPNI and I can't find much in the way of actual information on it as a taxon. Anyone else feel like investigating further? Rkitko ^(talk) 00:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not a hoax.[2] Hesperian 00:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, found the google books hits and I'm convinced it's not a hoax, but I can't find any information on the authority, date of publication, etc. Maybe a case of a common name becoming a species epithet without formal publication? Rkitko ^(talk) 01:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that Alternanthera sissoo is a published name. "Brazilian spinach" may not have a published species name.[3].Melburnian (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, very interesting. Thanks for that. So, should we just remove the taxobox and rename? Rkitko ^(talk) 03:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the way to go for now. Melburnian (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)