Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Hsinying Quatal

I came across this weirdly written (It should be at Paphiopedilum 'Hsinying Quatal', for a first) article, but am not sure whether to send it straight to AFD or just move it. Any thoughts? Circeus (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears on the RHS International Orchid Register [1] However, everything in the article except the first three sentences appears to be about the genus Paphiopedilum in general, rather than the hybrid itself. Melburnian (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My thought was more along the line that a hybrid requires more than existence to be notable, but I'm not clear what our de facto guideline on this point is. Circeus (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would lean that way, but we've just nodded through a rose cultivar. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the notability of hybrids/cultivars varies enormously. Some are highly notable, others not. For this particular cultivar, I can't find (at least on the net) any depth of information that couldn't be handled in a list. I would not object to having the notability of this article tested at AfD. Melburnian (talk)

I didn't see any notability in the rose cultivar nodded through. However, start a Paphiopedilum hybrids page? Lavateraguy (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the rose cultivar meets the notability threshold - "Precious Platinum Rose" gets quite a number of hits in Google Books[2], one of the hits that gives a full preview has a detailed description [3]; "Hsinying Quatal" on the other hand gets 0 GBhits. [4]. I agree that starting a "Paphiopedilum hybrids" (or similar) article is a good idea.Melburnian (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hsinying Quatal Melburnian (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC) ‎

WikiProject Forestry

I just wanted to invite interested people to the newest plant-related wikiproject, WikiProject Forestry. Guettarda (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Dock

Dock, a disambiguation page, is pending disambiguation of its incoming links. But first, please take a look and see if you can improve Dock. --Una Smith (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Question re plant common names template

See Template talk:Plant common name/doc. --Una Smith (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mystery flowers

Hi. These things have been popping up all over Denton, and I seem unable to identify them via the usual tricks I've learned so far. They seem a bit like poppies, but I don't think they're poppies. The petals are pointy. Are they some kind of lily? As lilies go, they're not very fancy-looking.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

I'm also open to photography feedback. Are any of these pictures good? I think I've improved the lighting and focus since the last time I was poking around. I think I like #s 2, 5 and 7 the best, but I wonder what others think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomically species, they're not even close to poppies; they are some kind of monocot; I don't know much about this area, but as an educated guess I'd say it is some kind of amaryllid. Hesperian 01:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

On further investigation, a Habranthus. Hesperian 01:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask EnCASF (talk · contribs) if he can give it a look. Circeus (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

They're "lilies" is the broad non-phylogenetic sense of "monocot flower with six tepals", but they're in the Asparagales not in the Liliales. On a quick check, I agree with Hesperian that they might be Amaryllidaceae. Specifically, I think they're Habranthus texanus (the only Habranthus species in the Texas flora), and these are better pictures than the one currently on the Habranthus page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I should say that H. texanus is the only species listed in the Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. A check of the Texas Flora database turns of no records under that name, and all but one of the records returned under that genus are for the species H. tubispathus. There may have been a genus revision since the Manual was published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

According to [5] and [6], tubispathus and texanus are synonymous (or texanus is a variety), with tubispathus apparently more standard for the specific name. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I also notice that the Habranthus page currently says that species in the genus have flowers in umbels of 2-3. That is clearly incorrect for the Texas species, at least. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the ID. The Flora of North America goes with H. tubispathus [7] Melburnian (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of these databases seem to include the genus is Amaryllidaceae, and others in Liliaceae. Reading the latter page, I guess that's pretty normal. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, They are very good pictures of Habranthus tubispathus formerly known as Habranthus andersonii or sometimes Habranthus texanus, blooms in the summer after a good rain. The variety texensis is found in Texas and Louisiana and is yellow-orange with streaks of bronze. This info together with some other pics can be seen [here]. Habranthus is considered a member of Amaryllidaceae (sensu APGI and APGII) or a member of Liliaceae in the older system of Cronquist. SF|EnCASF]] (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Many floras (such as FNA) still use this later system. Thanks Circeus!! :-) (I am quite bussy to enter every day...I will try to continue my job this weekend). --[[User:EnCA

http://www.noodlesnacks.com/article.flowerphotography.php may be a good read. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. This page is really helping me learn about the world around me, and I'm quite grateful. You guys are patient with my ignorance, which is very cool. I'll keep practicing taking pictures, and my questions ought to get more intelligent as I learn... -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Tree-stub

I've nominated this for deletion. It clutters up the bottom of articles that invariably already have a taxon-specific stub tag on them, and I don't think it has an audience. Who amongst us has a specific interest in perennial woody plants with a single, large, supporting stem expressing apical dominance? Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/July/3 Hesperian 01:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as the articles in question are categorized in a tree category, I don't think the stub is needed any longer. The was a person helping to flesh out tree stubs long ago, but the number of stubs has grown far faster than he was ever keeping up with, and no one else has stepped in to make use of them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybot foreign language redirects from species to genus

Many of anybot's redirects are redirects from species names in foreign languages to the genus, without explanation in the genera articles. Should these be deleted? --69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There's not context. I'd like the mess to be cleaned up, I'm asking those with deleting privileges to delete them. I'll check each and make sure it's an anybot created redirect then put it in a list. Too much time has been spent on this already. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Thigmonasty

Hey, folks. Just checking in with other wikibotanists here. I've had a disagreement with an editor over language choices in Thigmonasty and Venus Flytrap regarding acid growth. Does anyone else know quite a bit about acid growth theory? Am I off my rocker? Please check in with the discusison at Talk:Thigmonasty#Acid growth vs. acid-induced stretching and let me know. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 13:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of re-igniting a week-old debate (but I just found it now), I've responded there. Kingdon (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. And thanks to Curtis Clark for responding as well. The editor seems to have backed off there, seemingly occupied with other concerns at the moment. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 01:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

List of lily species

Genus Lilium. Under the headline Taxonomy at this article, there is an organised list of species, with a photograph of the flowers of many species. While there is obviously some value to these images, it makes the page long, and makes it very difficult to find a species (without using search functions anyway). I'm tempted to hive these images off to an image gallery at the end of the article, or to another article, and just have a standard text list. Any thoughts? Are there any other articles organised similarly? Imc (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I would hive this off to List of Lilium species, and replace it here with either a very concise alphabetical list, or, better still, an infrageneric classification, if one exists. Hesperian 13:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The list at Lilium is already organized by infrageneric classification. I guess I like having the photos in with the list, although I could see some changes (like alphabetizing under each section, or using gallery tags). I'm not a fan of sticking the images at the end of the article or in an image-only page (see WP:IG); the images should serve a purpose (in this case, showing what the various species look like) rather than being an unorganized photo album. I could see a text-only list in the taxobox (without common names, native ranges, images, etc), and a slightly longer list in the article (although I don't know whether it is controversial to put such a long list in the taxobox, as opposed to just the sections or something). Kingdon (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

List of natural Orchidaceae genera: assistance requested

I've been working on a new version of this list (User:Circeus/Sandbox/tree), with more details and (partial) synonymy included. I've just complete A. However, there is only so much I can do with th material I have access to and would appreciate help in determining several taxonomic/nomenclatural points:

• It seems that Aa and Altensteinia are often made synonyms in either direction, am I crazy? Is it worth adding a note regarding this?
• The followng genera are in the Kews checklist, but appears to have never had any species listed: Aclinia, Acraea, Ala, Androgyne, Anocheile, Anthericlis, Anthogyas and Arnedina. I'm not clear what to do about them.
• It is not clear which genus some genera should be synonymized with: Acrostylia (Habenaria, Cynorchis), Aggeranthus (Porpax, Eria), Alvisia (Conchidium, Bryobium), Anaphora (Dienia, Malaxis), Asarca (Chlorea, Gravilea)
• Attribution is unclear for Arpophyllum (La LLave & Lex. or just Lex.?)[8] and Ascochilus (Kews credit it to Ridl., but according IPNI, that's a later homonym for a Blume name, is Ascochilus Ridl. even the right genus?)
• I find some references to "Aulizeum Lindl. ex Stein", but that name is not in Kews. (there are in fact a few other names in [9] that are not in Kews, but I can't be arsed to find them again ATM)
• Finally, I have some 2 dozen names where I am not clear whether to list them as outright or disputed synonyms. The 2000s names by Luer (mostly in Pleurothallidineae) and Clements & Jones (e.g. Anzybas, Acianthiella) are particularly troublesome.
• I'm not clear what would make a real good source for most of the generic abbreviation. Most of them are not actually used by the Sanders list, and are from [10].

I am also wondering whether to note things like nomen invalidum/ambiguum/illegitimum and whether was an independent creation or a segregate, but I suspect such information would be far too difficult to locate for me. There needs to be a checklist where they also gives a references for the synonymizing, dammit! Listing a name as a synonymy without reference to who decided that is as useless as a nomen nudum AFAIAC. Circeus (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you get access to this? It seems our library has it, I'll try to remember to get their copy.

Any questions about the Kew list should be sent to them directly. They have a contact form. I had a question about one of their palm listings recently - Govaerts replied promptly to me and the entry was corrected by the following day.

I would also recommend contacting Wes Higgins at Marie Selby Botanical Gardens, coauthor of the volume listed above. [Odd, he's no longer on their staff list]. Guettarda (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Aulizeum, Tropicos lists it as a spelling variant for Auliza, so I'll amend my listing. I'll likely still email the checklist regarding this and whatever extra genera I come across in tropicos (Just found Abrochis Neck. ex Raf.) and others. Circeus (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• re: Aa and Altensteinia - while they're close relatives, they're apparently not sister taxa[11] (let me know if you need a copy). I'm guessing that it's morphological and distributional similarity that's behind any swapping of species. Guettarda (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Alrich + Higgins

• Aclinia - considered part of Dendrobium
• Acraea - considered part of Ptericis
• Ala - not validly published, most often referred to Alinorchis
• Androgyne - rejected in favour of Panisea
• Anocheile - published without description; most often referred to Epidemdrum
• Anthericlis - considered part of Tipularia
• Anthogyas - published without description; most often referred to Bletia
• Arnedina - orthographic variant of Arundina

They consider

• Acrostylia to be Cynorchis
• Aggeranthus to be an orthographic variation of Aggeianthus, which is Porpax
• Alvisia to be Conchidium
• Anaphora to be Dienia
• Asarca to be "Chlorea or Gravilea" (presumably the species are divided between the two genera), with the type species being C. chrysantha.

• Arpophyllum is credited to Lexarza
• Ascochilus is credited to Blume, but "published without a description", and referred to Geodorum
• Aulizeum Lindl. ex Wittstein is "published without a description" and referred to Epidendrum

Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the significance of "natural"? Hesperian 23:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Because Once that is done, I intend to do a separate List of hybrid Orchidaceae genera. Circeus (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

But surely there are naturally occurring hybrid genera? Perhaps a different title would be more appropriate (non-hybrid?). mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember only a few natural hybrids actually exist. And those in the laelia/sophronitis/cattleya series were significantly reduced when ¾ of the species in theses three genera were put into only one genus. Circeus (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Need help listing an article

Or at least the best course of action to follow. Can someone help me list an article on the main project page that is being considered for deletion. This way a debate for community consesnus can take place? Thanks a bunch for any help.Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Plants tagged articles will appear under the Article Alerts section automatically if nominated for deletion. If this concerns Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alta Vista Gardens, I would consider that article to be within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening rather than this project. I've added the Wikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening tag to the talk page so that it will show up in that projects Article Alerts after the bot does its run. Melburnian (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thaks for your help in placing it in the right spotOttawa4ever (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Alfalfa

FYI, Alfalfa → Medicago sativa - requested move has been filed. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a tough one for me, since I could see a good case for having an article about the crop alfalfa. Guettarda (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Alfalfa? You mean lucerne? :-) --Curtis Clark (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...good point. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about Devil's club

I wanted to add a content to this article about the way this plant spreads, where what appears to be many plants may actually be only one, connected by long "runners" on the ground. However, I am unsure if these are rhizomes or stolons. Does anyone have any idea? I can provide photographs if needed, it's growing all around my house. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's best to use the terminology used by reliable sources. With reference to this article, it seems that this plant forms clonal colonies via layering of their decumbent stems. Melburnian (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the assist! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Proteaceae fringe theory

I may need some help over at Proteaceae. I'm up to three reverts of material sourced from an online essay, which claims that the family arose in the Carboniferous! Hesperian 05:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The same material appears as ref 11 in Flowering plant, with two others at However, some authors have proposed an earlier origin for angiosperms, sometime in the Paleozoic. cygnis insignis 06:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed some scientific support for emergence of the angiosperms late in the Paleozoic. But that is a very far cry from the claim that the Proteaceae emerged in the Carboniferous. Hesperian 07:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really able to evaluate whether any of this makes sense, but I'll try to describe the rationale as I understand it. The talk I heard had to do with the distribution of orchids around the world. The claim was that orchid seed is not likely to remain viable when travelling across the ocean (beyond a few kilometers; it has been observed to do so in cases of colonization from one island to another nearby one), and so the best way to explain why there are orchids all over the world is vicariance from before the breakup of Pangaea. This hypothesized Carboniferous orchid would have been unlikely to fossilize because of its nonwoody habit (say, maybe like Goodyera or something). Maybe people have looked into this and decided it is crackpottery. Maybe it is plausible but hard to prove or disprove. I don't really know. I do know that I take molecular clocks with a huge pile of salt and don't consider the absence of a fossil record to prove a whole lot except what is going on with trees and other more-likely-to-fossilize plants. As for how any of this relates to Proteaceae, I don't really get that, because Gondwana didn't break up until mid-Jurassic and in fact a Carboniferous origin would seem to make it harder to explain why Proteaceae is only found in the Antarctic flora. Kingdon (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The talk sounds sadly confused. For one thing, there is ample fossil pollen record for other nonwoody taxa (ferns, grasses). Why should orchid pollen be excluded? In any case, a talk is not a reliable source. --Una Smith (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"The fossil record lacks evidence of orchids, Ram rez says, because they bloom infrequently and are concentrated in tropical areas where heat and humidity prevent fossilization. Their pollen is dispersed only by animals, not wind, and disintegrates upon contact with the acid used to extract pollen from rocks." from [12] Hardyplants (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Infrequent blooming and mostly tropical habitat don't fly, being true also for ferns that do have a fossil record. Dispersal by animals might fly, except that it requires suitable animals, which do have a fossil record. I am not sure about the "acid test"; fossil pollen in general differs a lot from fresh pollen, due to processes of fossilization. In any case, this Carboniferous origin idea seems to be based on stretching "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to the extreme. --Una Smith (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that ferns produce a lot more spores than orchids do pollen. Apart from that ferns never bloom, and spore production is not infrequent for many ferns. You could probably argue that orchids have a mostly tropical habitat, but I wouldn't say that that is true for ferns, either in the present world, or in the past. I'm sure that the production of bracken spores alone in the UK dwarfs the production of orchid pollen. If orchid pollen is particularly sensitive to acid conditions that would weigh against it being fossilised in the first place.

The site quotes approvingly a claim that Rhipsalis is the oldest cactus genus, on the grounds of its wide distribution. This is incompatible with what we infer from DNA sequence data, and also happens to be an obvious case of dispersal. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This theory about the age of orchids makes no sense at all ! Orchids have settled on many remote islands much younger than Pangea, the evidence of the ability of their numerous tiny seeds to travel far away carried by the wind or by birds. Even if billions of seeds have died, enough have occasionnally managed to survive and to develop and thus to spread this family all over the world. --Channer (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that orchid seeds fossilize more often than the pollen, wonder if there have been any studies? Hardyplants (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This theory about the age of orchids makes no sense at all ! You are absolutely correct, but that has never stopped wild speculation before. I should also note that the "Carboniferous orchid" idea falls down when one considers that the oldest known fossils bees are Cretaceous (~100 mya), so the hypothetical Carboniferous orchid could not have been pollinated by bees. Further, there are no angiosperm fossils prior to the Cretaceous--not even their pollen. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about addition to List of culinary fruits

I almost reverted this edit, because it added some scientific names at odds with the linked species of the common names. But then it occurred to me that some of these common names may be used for different plants in Oz than on my side of the equator and International Date Line, and that perhaps the editor forgot to look at where the links went. Is this edit basically factual, with just some clumsy errors?--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it appears quite factual from a quick lookover. I'll have a look at where the links are going to and make adjustments to redirects, and disambiguation pages as well as create a few stubs over the next few days. Melburnian (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

However some species added in the link didn't qualify as culinary nuts. Melburnian (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Once I knew what belonged, I did some additional cleanup.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

IDs

• 1 - Thought it was Iris versicolor but then realised it wasn't
  1 - Thought it was Iris versicolor but then realised it wasn't
• 
  2 - Should be a tas native. Pretty sure its hakea, but not so confident on the species.
• 
  3

Thank you. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Hakea epiglottis [13]

3. Abutilon cultivar Melburnian (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably an Abutilon megapotamicum hybrid (see Abutilon ×mllleri). Might first thought was 'Kentish Belle', but the corolla colour is wrong. Second thought takes me to 'Patrick Synge'. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Species of Iris can be difficult to identify. It would help if I knew where the photo was taken and whether the plant was native to the region. Even then, some of the 200 Iris species are distinguished on the basis of rhizome characters, so it may not be possible to ID the species precisely. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Taken in Austins Ferry, Tasmania, Australia. Unlikely to be a native. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I've proposed merging Cannabis sativa into Cannabis here. Taxonomic sources such as this list Cannabis as only being one species and therefore only the genus should have an article. Your input to this would be appreciated - our current classification of these articles is poor. Herbal Hi (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read the detailed taxonomic discussion at Cannabis, a merger is not a good idea. There is still considerable debate on the issue, and there is a recently idntified possible new species. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Guideline

Please add to your guidelines a rule for where in an article about a botanist the line about the standard author abbreviation should fall. I'm looking at George Washington Carver, and it looks bad buried at the end the way it is. I think it should be right after the lead. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Phyla (genus) and various Phyla species

If anybody's looking for something to do, Phyla (genus) (formerly Lippia) could use some tightening up. Also various Phyla / Lippia species are apparently redlinks. I am not a botanist, but as far as I can tell from our articles, the Phyla species are not particularly obscure. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Plant common names on disambiguation pages

This edit deleted a long list of plant common names (cow vetch, cow lily, etc) from Cow (disambiguation). It may be related to an ongoing debate over whether to move the disambiguation page to Cow (now a redirect). --Una Smith (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems a perfectly reasonable edit. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, per Wikipedia:DISAMBIG#Partial title matches. -Rkitko ^(talk) 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts, too.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Having disambiguated a lot of incoming links, I can say Wikipedia:DISAMBIG#Partial title matches falls short. One way to find out what needs to be disambiguated is to look at incoming links. For example, if there are links of the form [[milk]] [[cow]] then Cow (disambiguation) should include a link to Dairy cattle, because that is the article most relevant to milk cows. And if there are many "sum of parts" links like that, then probably the disambiguation page should be at the ambiguous base name. --Una Smith (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that if someone wrote cowslip, we should assume it was intentional.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

How about moving the plant common names piecemeal to set index articles? For example, Cowslip (vernacular name). --Una Smith (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be a bad idea. On [14], both plants are known as "cowslip", so a secondary page is unnecessary. older ≠ wiser 02:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

So you would put the disambiguation page Cowslip in Category:Plant common names even though it includes items in addition to plant common names? --Una Smith (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose. Although I don't see that Category:Plant common names has any description defining what the category is about. BTW, the category can also be added with the "plant" parameter to the disambig template; e.g., {{disambig|plant}}. older ≠ wiser 03:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Are categories supposed to have descriptions? Some editors remove {{disambig|plant}} from a disambiguation page that lists more than plants. Some other editors put plant common name pages (redirects, dabs, set index articles) in more specific categories, such as a category for the plant family, genus, or species. --Una Smith (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessary for a category to have a description, but where the inclusion criteria is not obvious from the name, it is helpful to include a description. According to the instruction on {{disambig}}, the parameters are precisely for that purpose: If a general dab page includes more than one item in any of the above classes [of specialized templates], then {{disambig}} should still be used, but parameters can be added in order to place the page additionally into the above categories. older ≠ wiser 04:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Further IDs

• 1 - Low, sprawling ground cover.
  1 - Low, sprawling ground cover.
• 2 - Abutilon?
  2 - Abutilon?
• 2
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4

Thank you again. All in Austin's Ferry, Tasmania, Australia. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have anything useful to add, but wow. Those are amazing. Guettarda (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• 1: Vinca: sprawling fits Vinca major better than Vinca minor ("creeping"), but low isn't typical of V. major.
• 2/3: yes, it's a Abutilon ×hybridum cultivar
• 4: pass
• 5: I think I should know it, but the lack of context defeats me. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• 1. Vinca major
• 2. Abutilon cultivar
• 3. Persicaria capitata
• 4. Luculia gratissima (amazing - an exact match! ;) ) Melburnian (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The hairy margins on the leaves of #1 indicates Vinca major. Kaldari (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

List of externally visible plant parts

I've proposed merging this into the List of plant morphology terms. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The target page has a merge notice with Glossary of botanical terms. Shouldn't we be merging all three? Guettarda (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're making. It has a merge notice from another page, yes, so that there are two articles suggested for merger into List of plant morphology terms. As far as I know, there is no three-way merger tag, and I don't see that such a tag is needed. The List of externally visible plant parts is a very short list with almost no content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thorns, spines, and prickles

Hey, all. An editor had suggested a merge of thorn (botany), spine (botany), and prickle (botany), but neglected to use the merge template, so it didn't show up under the article alerts for our project. I'm not sure what I think about the merge. My first instinct is to demerge, but perhaps that's just a reaction to the title. Thoughts? --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The title is awkward, but on principle, one article is not a bad idea - since it seems that single topics are not likely to get past stubs without much duplication. Hardyplants (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just can't think of a more succinct title. Any ideas? --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Awkward, yes, but it gets the job done.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Double fertilization

We could also probably use a few eyes on this article, as it's had a lot of text added by newbie editors (class assignment?). --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone in the know check this article for factual accuracy, please?

Bossiella. It was created by User:Smith609 - possibly using the same broken AlgaeBase script as was later used by User:Anybot. It's not my area and it seems to have also stumped the IP user who's been sorting through the remaining Anybot-edited articles. Help would be much appreciated. Thanks muchly. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned this one up (I hope), but that ended up reducing it to a bare stub. Someone who understands the technical descriptions in AlgaeBase might be able to put some sensible text back. (Somewhere along the line someone failed to understand that spores and sporangia aren't the same thing - I know that much, from flowering plant jargon, but not what all this means in terms of algae). How the taxobox went astray is another question. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone check these also? I've removed them from the anybot list, so, if they need deleted please ask Kurt Shaped Box to delete them, if they don't need community input, otherwise nominate for deletion if they do. Thank you.

• Stilus: (1 edits, 1 major, +750) (+750) - needs checking by expert
• Cruoriopsis: (2 edits, 1 major, +331) (+331)(-306) - requires taxonomist

--69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect to Lauterbornia, if the facts are as you say, I suggest stubbing it as the insect (data for taxobox here) with a hat note pointing at Synechococcus Lavateraguy (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I did the algae. I think it can be both an algae and an insect. What about the other two, can someone make a decision to delete or keep? --69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at Cruoriopsis. Some of the roads led to The UL Lafayette Seaweeds Lab but I didn't get very far in actually tracking down their publications (beyond the one I cited in that article). Kingdon (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

ICBN and italics

A section has been added to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) which states

"When a genus or lower-level taxon is the article name, the title should be italicized as per ICZN and ICBN."

As I understand it, the ICBN has nothing much to say about italicising taxa, making "per ICBN" misleading if not false. One might counter that "per ICBN" merely means that we follow the usage set in the ICBN documentation; yet I believe the ICBN routinely italicises higher taxa, an unusual convention that was firmly rejected by WP:PLANTS a few years back. Does anyone want to have a go at sorting this out? Hesperian 00:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The ICBN is somewhat heterodox (although understandably so) in its own typography: "To set off scientific plant names even better, the abandonment in the Code of italics for technical terms and other words in Latin, traditional but inconsistent in early editions, has been maintained."[15] My understanding is that the italicizing of scientific names was initially in keeping with an English typographic tradition of italicizing all words in foreign languages (it seem like Septentrionalis would want us to italicize them, as further proof that they are Latin and not English). Scientific names in Latin descriptions and diagnoses are traditionally not italicized (and of course are declined according to their roles in sentences). A tradition in some Eastern European countries was to  i n c r e a s e   t h e   l e t t e r   s p a c i n g  instead of using italics, and I have seen books that treat scientific names thus. And of course with East Asian languages you go with whatever fonts you have.

The dilemma we face is that italicizing plant genera and species is a typographic tradition in English, not a part of the Code, and so we are on shaky ground compared to the zoologists.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, "italics" is not on the subject index of the Vienna code at all. I'll adjust it to "following practice in Biology publications". No need to mention ICZN at all since this is for plant articles. Circeus (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Here's the relevant text from the ICZN: "6. The scientific names of genus- or species-group taxa should be printed in a type-face (font) different from that used in the text; such names are usually printed in italics, which should not be used for names of higher taxa."[16]

My changes to the guideline also ec'ed with yours, but I like yours better.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that the FNA volumes use boldface titles for species names, which seems to be a common practice in other works too. Hardyplants (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, sort of. They do bold the species name, but they also bold quite a number of other words within the species description as a substitute for starting a new paragraph, so the species name is in bold, then the description begins: Plants erect wtih... Stems square in cross... Leaves denticulate... So that more than just the species is in bold. Note also that they do not put the genus name in bold or in italics, but in all capitals at the start of each genus section. I assume that we on Wikipedia would prefer to use the same font style for both genus and species article names. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Arguably a flora should use different typography than an encyclopedia, but I think we all agree that not using any typographic set-off goes against common usage in English.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a nomenclatorial issue, but a typographical one, so the ICBN will not afford us a definitive answer. The ICBN is intended to be used by many cultures who speak many languages, and cannot therefore specify font styles. Part of the reason that spacing (rather than italics) is used in Eastern Europe is that italicized Cyrillic script can look like a different spelling. The lowercase printed д has a cursive counterpart that looks like a "g"; printed И becomes a cursive "U"; and printed Т becomes a cursive "M". The best way for Cyrillic printers to avoid this confusion is to avoid italics. We have had the same issue on Wiktionary, and have similarly chosen to avoid italic forms of Cyrillic.

Since this is the English Wikipedia, we should therefore consider conventions in English. The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., says (s. 8.128): "Whether in lists or in running text, the binomial Latin species names of plants and animals are italicized. The genus name is capitalized, and the specific epithet (even if it is a proper adjective) is lowercased. Do not confuse species names with phyla, orders, and such, which are not italicized." Other style guides make essentially the same recommendation. Is there some reason we should defy this convention? --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Some plagiarism issues

Was just poking around at Liriodendron tulipifera and some of the phrasing (e.g., "The trunk rises like a Corinthian column, tall and slender, the branches come out symmetrically", which I googled and found) seems to be copied from a PD book [17]. Not a copyright issue, of course, but it looks like a WP:PLAG issue because there are no quotes.

Was actually just looking to do some copyediting, but looks like I could use some help re-sourcing and/or rephrasing the entire article. Not sure how it got there, but might be worth looking into to see if other eastern North America tree species might have this issue. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It was added in May 2007. The PD source is referenced, imprecisely, in the edit summary. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Norman Borlaug

I have nominated Norman Borlaug for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)