User talk:Jza84/Sandbox3

Eriophorum angustifolium

As a protogynous flowering plant (angiosperm), sexual reproduction of Eriophorum angustifolium occurs via the process of pollination

This sounds strange to me. Pollination is indeed part of sexual reproduction for all flowering plants; protogyny is not characteristic of all flowering plants. Rephrase so protogyny is presented as the most relevant fact.

the states of New Jersey and New York in the southeast

May be read as if NJ & NY are in the southeastern portion of the North American continent, rather than being the southeastern limit of the plants range.

North Asia and European Russia, including Siberia and the Kamchatka Peninsula

Swap the position of North Asia and European Russia, now may be read as if Kamchatka is part of European Russia

2-to-6-millimetre (0.079–0.236 in)

Having both dashes and "to" in the size range is redundant. Ranges in metric measurements all have "to". Converted imperial measurements have a dash. Standardize how measurement ranges are presented?

The genus name Eriophorum is a Latin portmanteau consisting of the ancient Greek-derived words

Scientific names are sometimes referred to as "Latin names", but as is the case here, may be derived from Greek or other languages. Delete "Latin"

named Eriophorum angustifolium in 1782 using standard binomial nomenclature, by either of two German botanists: Gerhard August Honckeny,or Albrecht Wilhelm Roth

Honckeny named it in 1782 [1]. Roth named SOMETHING E. angustifolium in 1788 [2]. Roth might have been unaware of the Honckeny plant and was attempting to name a different species. Roth might have been aware of the Honckeny plant and was attempting to correct some perceived error in Honckeny's description. Further research would be needed to figure out the situation. It's probably best to just not mention Roth (it's unfortunate that his name has been attached to the plant in some sources, but it is pretty clear that those sources are misattributing Honckeny's plant to Roth)

Formerly known as Eriophorum polystachion and Scirpus angustifolius, which persist as taxonomic synonyms

Synonyms could be discussed in text, but I'd suggest sticking them in the taxobox (you can use references there). Current phrasing is a little confusing. E. polystachion was named before E. angustifolium, but S. angustifolius was named much later (in 1958).

Common Cottongrass, Common Cotton-Grass, Common Cottonsedge, Tassel cotton grass, the Many-headed cotton-grass, Thin-scale cotton-grass, Tall Cotton-Grass, Downy ling, and Bog Cotton.

Whether to capitalize or hyphenate plant common names is a contentious issue and consensus has never been reached. I'd suggest either picking a consistent capital/hyphen usage in the article, or, probably the superior option since you've got all these sourced, going with exactly the way the name is presented in the source. I didn't check all of them, but the RHS Plant Selector has "common cotton sedge", "tassel cotton grass" and "common cotton grass" (hmm, actually the first word is capitalized on the RHS site, but when I paste it here it shows up lower case; usually either all words in a common name are capitalized, or only proper nouns are, I think it's safe to infer that if only the first word is capitalized, it's sentence case). The hyphen in "cotton-grass" is a special case; some botanists would use a hyphen here to indicate that it is not a "true grass"; I dislike this convention since most readers are unaware of what the hyphen is meant to indicate, but I do think it is worth presenting both the hyphenated and unhypenated forms in Wikipedia.Plantdrew (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Helpful links

These web pages might help you.

• Eriophorum angustifolium at TPL
• Eriophorum angustifolium at Tropicos
• Eriophorum angustifolium at GRIN
• Eriophorum angustifolium at USDA Plants
• Eriophorum angustifolium at Flora of China

The authority is definitely Gerhard August Honckeny, not Roth, as Honckeny published in 1782 (Roth was 1788). Hamamelis (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

--Thanks User:Plantdrew and User:Hamamelis. If I've understood you both correctly, I have made ammendments based on your feedback with these changes. Once I have a distribution map made, I will move the sandbox over to the main article space. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This will be an excellent article. Thank you for your hard work.Plantdrew (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the fact that we have no idea if what Roth named was the same plant (in fact I don't think it at all likely that it is, though this could be researched) should be made more clear. As Plantdrew said 'Roth named SOMETHING E. angustifolium in 1788'. The current passage reads, 'also a German botanist attributed to naming the species, published this name in 1788'; though every word of it is true, this isn't clear enough, in my view. Most people reading this won't be professional botanists, and won't catch the subtle distinction between "publishing the name" and "publishing the species". Hamamelis (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

How would be best to write this? I presume this is quite common - do you know if this type of issue has it been tackled in other plant articles, in a way which I can replicate? --Jza84 |  Talk  10:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No I don't unfortunately, but these pages from the Biodiversity Heritage Library may help: from Tentamen Florae Germanicae by Albrecht Wilhelm Roth (this is the page in which he names E. angustifolium; it's in Latin and 18 cent. German) ; JPG of the same page. Hamamelis (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a phrase just simply stating that Roth's may, or may not be the same plant. Hamamelis (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

So Roth's name IS the same thing. I can't read the German, but Roth's description at the BHL link you provided above mentions "Vollständiges Systematisches Verzeichniss Aller Gewächse Teutschlandes Tom. 1 n. 122 p. 153", which is a citation of Honckeny's description (see [3] for citation of where Honckeny published), even though Honckeny's name doesn't show up in Roth. Did Roth actually establish a homonym (rather than just give an incomplete citation of Honckeny)? I'm not very clear on how to interpret the status of names published before nomenclatural rules began to be codified (since not all provisions of the current rules are retroactive). I'd suggest phrasing along the lines of "some sources credit Roth with having described the species".Plantdrew (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I hadn't noticed that. Your suggestion sounds fine to me, but with something to the effect of: 'some sources erroneously credit Roth with having described the species, but Roth was merely citing Honckeny's earlier published name.' Hamamelis (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've come up with these changes to reflect the findings. Hopefully that's the most accurate and NPOV way around it - still holding out for a distribution map in the meantime, which (with some luck) won't be too long now. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You've worded it well, I think–I look forward to the new article's debut! Hamamelis (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)