Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants
|Main page||Talk||Taxon template||Botanist template||Resources||Participants||New articles||Index|
|WikiProject Plants was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 17 December 2007. If you wish to get involved with the Signpost, please visit the Newsroom.|
|WikiProject Plants||(Rated Project-class)|
Archives since 2011
|54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63|
64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
Threads older than 45 days may be archived.
Template:GRIN fixes requestedEdit
- One request – my own – handled by myself, which probably resolved the other one, too. One in still waiting:
- CiaPan (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
What authority are we using for grasses? I'm working on creating pages for all of the Boutelouas, and as with all of these obscure grasses, the taxonomy is always a bit foggy. I'm using ITIS at the moment, as its what I use in my day to day field research, but I realized that Wikipedia might use a different one. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Plants of the World Online (POWO) is the best general database at this point, but other sources can be followed if they can be shown to be better. GrassBase is the major specialized database for grasses that I'm aware of, but as it and POWO are both products of Kew, I expect that POWO probably follows GrassBase (but I haven't checked for discrepancies). I implemented automatic taxoboxes for most grass articles a couple months ago; I was following Soreng et al. for infrafamilial classification. Most of the grass articles still using manual taxoboxes are in genera not recognized by Soreng. I intend to revist the remaining manual taxoboxes, but haven't decided how to handle cases where Soreng and POWO/GrassBase disagree. Plantdrew (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Plants of the World Online sinks a number of genera in tribe Papavereae of the Papaveraceae into Papaver, which in their circumscription includes Meconopsis, Roemeria and Stylomecon, which our family article keeps separate, and two of which have their own article. The molecular evidence for the para/polyphyly of traditional Papaver has been clear for a long time, but horticulturalists in particular have fought to keep Meconopsis separate from Papaver (excluding M. cambrica, which is clearly in Papaver, although the type species of Meconopsis). However, there does seem a trend towards accepting the merger, as exemplified by this paper.
- That paper rejects the merger. What it proposes is transferring Meconopsis cambrica and Stylomecon heterophylla into Papaver, splitting Cathcartia from Meconopsis, and moving two groups of Papaver into Roemleria and Meconopsis respectively. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Can the genus name be retained if the type species is moved? Is there any precedent for such a move?
08:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. There's a mechanism for overriding the rules of priority in taxonomic nomenclature to reduce disruption by the discovery of old names or reclassification of groups.
- "As Grey-Wilson moved the original type Meconopsis cambrica out of Meconopsis, he (2012) proposed conservation of the generic name Meconopsis for the Asiatic species with a new type: Meconopsis regia G. Taylor. Because the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants recommended Grey-Wilson's proposal (in Taxon 62(6): 1318. 2013), we use the generic name “Meconopsis” for the Asian species following Article 14.16 of the International Code of Nomenclature (McNeill et al. 2012)." Lavateraguy (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Commons help requestedEdit
Anyone interested in helping out with identification on some photos: there are tens of thousands of photos in Commons:Category:Unidentified plants and its subcategories, and any help there would be very welcome. I suspect that we actually have photos of no small number of the plants for which photos have been requested, but lack identification. Plenty of very nice photos, as you can see from the few examples I've given above. - Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- GRIN and PoWO favour Mauranthemum paludosum, so a move seems justified. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- More data points - BSBI and Stace 3rd edn. have Mauranthemum as does Euro+Med Plantbase. Tele-Botanica however uses Leucanthemum. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Extended Template for Wikipedia articles on Invasive Alien PlantsEdit
As a next step, I compared it with your Taxon template and extended the structure of chapters 6 (Distribution and habitat) and 7 (Ecology) to fit required descriptives for Invasive Alien Plants. Details of the adaptations can be seen in the google sheet Wikiproject Plants - Template for plant articles, adapted for Invasive Alien Plants.
We would be grateful if you could critically review our template and check if it fits the "Wikiproject Plants" requirements.
The article for Jankaea needs to be updated with the correct spelling as Jancaea. I haven't touched it because the article title also needs to be changed; see references on the talk page. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)