Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive67

Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Propose merger of Grass into Poaceae

I suggest that we don't need two articles that both cover essentially the same topic, and that any useful material in Grass should be merged into Poaceae. Plantsurfer 12:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I am thinking the two are synonymous too and that a merge is a good idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue has come up before, and might be contentious. The talk page has been archived at Talk:Grass/Archive_1. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

That discussion appears to have fizzled out without reaching any satisfactory conclusion. Maybe we can do better this time. I can't for the life of me see why WP needs to have an article called Grass to contain every green plant, however unrelated to grass, that people happen to call grass. Grass of Parnassus, scurvy grass, Good Friday grass, etc. are not grass. There is a process called disambiguation for dealing with that situation, and to lump all these disparate taxa into one category is to perpetuate a false taxonomy. Plantsurfer 19:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I support a merger. We already have Cereal and Lawn; Grass adds nothing that can't be covered better elsewhere. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok folks. Looks like we're gonna have to do this properly, with a proper request to merge. So can folks vote once I get it up and running? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Echinopsis spachiana

I started expanding this but it looks like it isn't a valid species any more. Some south african pages regard it as a synonym for Echinopsis schickendantzii...but I can't see what else states that. And I am not au fait with where consensus is recorded for plants outside Australia.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, we've gone with lumping alot of genera into Echinopsis but am wondering how the consensus lies..having come across a paper arguing for resurrection of Trichocereus... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Classification of cacti remains, so far as I can tell, highly uncertain. From Cactus#Classification: "a 2011 study found only 39% of the genera in the subfamily Cactoideae sampled in the research were monophyletic." See also the lead section to Classification of the Cactaceae. The problem seems to be that although "everyone" knows that a lot of changes are needed, there's no good overall source to follow, so if you update the taxonomy in one area it can become inconsistent with another. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Plant List is the best place for consensus when there is no regional or tightly focused taxonomic database. It has its issues though and is far from perfect (and The Plant List aggregates from other databases, so the consensus attributed to TPL really should be attributed to TPL's sources). TPL recognizes both E. spachiana and E. schickendantzii. Tropicos shows that two recent (2014 and 2015) regional checklists treat E. spachiana as Trichocereus spachianus, and has no records of sources that synonymize spachiana and schickendantzii. From what I'm seeing, there are two accepted species here, but I'm reluctant to take a position on whether Trichocereus should be resurrected. Plantdrew (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that TPL offers the best consensus at present, and I'd go with it for now, although "WCSP (in review)", meaning an unpublished revision of WCSP, isn't an entirely reassuring source. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Echinopsis spachiana is proving elusive to find material on...I have a soft spot as it was one of the first cacti I ever grew...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a little bit more description in Anderson (2010), The Cactus Family, if you have access to it (or else e-mail me via Wikipedia). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: emailed away....thanks! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

When is APG APG and when is it not APG

Peter Coxhead raised an interesting question when he changed sensu APG to sensu Chase and Reveal 2009 on Lilioid monocots. A question I had been mulling over for some time. APG authors have continued to publish articles since 2009 using the term APG. This particular paper is titled "A phylogenetic classification of the land plants to accompany APG III" and reads (to me anyway) as if it is an extension of APG. But is it? I suppose as a last resort I could ask Mark Chase, but I have not been able to find literature supporting that statement, which is why I had been referring to it as APG. Possibly APG IV will clarify these issues. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Chase & Reveal (2009) begin their article with "The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (APG) classification (APG, 1998; APG II, 2003; APG III, 2009) is not a complete formal classification of the angiosperms and recognizes only families and orders" and then go on to offer such a complete formal classification. So I would say it's clear that they don't think that their classification is an "APG classification".

Likewise, I've noticed editors treating APweb's updates to APG III as if APweb's classification was an APG classification. I think only the three published APG papers which explicitly give the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group as the author can be called "APG classifications"; any others are the responsibility of the stated authors. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It is useful to remember that "APG" stands for Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, whereas the Chase and Reveal paper presents a classification of all land plants that is intended to be compatible with the APG classification of angiosperms.

However, the Chase and Reveal paper has many problems, not the least of which is that it is incompatible with the classifications in use for bryophytes and pteridophytes. Reveal's author attributions must also be considered suspect, as I have noticed some dodgy citations appearing in his papers, apparently to suit his own preconceived notions while maintaining an aura of priority. That is, Reveal openly advocates extending priority of publication to higher ranks (even though the Code does not do this), and he claims to be following priority for his preferred names. However, he seems to have deliberately overlooked Lepidodendrophyta, which appears in a source that he cites more than once, in favor of an older appearance of Lycophyta that does not satisfy the requirements for publication in the Code.

I also know of no practicing taxonomists who follow the Chase & Reveal classification, and given the incompatibility issues mentioned above, I rather doubt that I am likely to. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Reveal's lists of suprageneric names have been compiled only for extant plants, so Lepidodendrophyta would not have been included. His Phytotaxa publication is called "A checklist of familial and suprafamilial names for extant vascular plants". Where has he used Lycophyta, is it perhaps an error for Lycopodiophyta D. H. Scott 1900 as listed here? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Lycophyta" is mentioned in the ICN 16.1 Ex. 2 as an example of a descriptive name, as opposed to "Lycopodiophyta", mentioned in Ex. 1 as an example of an automatically typified name, so Lycophyta isn't an error for Lycopodiophyta. Priority is another matter. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't be an error in general, but I wondered whether Reveal might have used it by mistake, or perhaps he might have been deliberately imprecise. He was working on extending the principle of priority to higher ranks, and because he had obtained documents that had been on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain, strict application of the rules of priority would have overturned large numbers of well-established names. Some adjustments were made to the Code to bring more stability, but the interim provision that priority doesn't go all the way up is a major coping mechanism. I trust that is less of a problem now, because the phylogenies have so thoroughly upset the higher ranks in any case. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

One of the difficulties of APG is that it it does not actually exist. It is an informal communication between investigators, so it is only virtual. It has no street address or website or telephone number. It also has no authority, although it makes sweeping claims that no other classification system can now be justified. Its aims are noble, but it is up to the individual as to whether to follow it or not. James Reveal died recently so that leaves Mark Chase. I might be at Kew later this year. However I have never seen other APG authors refute the other publications. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Further, in defence of the late James Reveal, APG I refers to his efforts in the field of botanical nomenclature (an ever changing quagmire) as "Herculean". But more importantly relative to my original question, APG III specifically refers to Chase and Reveal 2009 as a useful, and for that matter also the linear APG paper which it utilises. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The phrase "I also know of no practicing taxonomists who follow the Chase & Reveal classification" got me wodering - so what do they use. As a first step, I noticed it has 207 cites in Google Scholar, and the first paper I pulled out said - we use the Chase and Reveal classification - but then Reveal was a coauthor. It was also combined with the LAPG scheme in Chase and Reveal 2011: APG III: Bibliographical Information and Synonymy of Magnoliidae. Phytotaxa 19: 71. (79 cites)--Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest that not following the classification is largely due to inertia. Those researchers who want to use binomial nomenclature (rather than Phylogenetic nomenclature) will eventually get to a point where they are submitting papers. If they don't do it themselves, reviewers will probably pick up on things like "the correct name for that clade when it is given the rank of super-order as you are doing is ...". In other words, I see the Chase & Reveal classification paper as primarily nomenclatural. They suggest that the simplified phylogeny that they've layed out in that paper is (approximately) the current consensus. In order to communicate about it, it is useful to have names for the clades at the consensus Linnean ranks. Some informal names are also provided for finer clades that need further work (they might evaporate, as the group formerly referred to as Dicotyledonae did). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Another possible merge

I've raised the issue of a merger at Magnoliidae sensu Chase & Reveal; the article appears to be about a name, not a taxon. Pace the departed editor Brya, we don't have articles about names, but about taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That is true of Magnoliidae, but there is a bigger issue here, which is that names like Equisitopsida are extremely ambiguous, and I do not think that such a name can be explained at Equisetum, which seems to be the notion behind the current effort to delete categories such as Category:Ephedrales and Category:Gnetidae which were first emptied and then nominated for speedy deletion without the creator (me) being notified. I think the big issue here is what to do about alternative classifications (which, by the way, I'm convinced can never last in wikispecies, they just get "corrected"). Another related issue is the difficulty of getting fossil plants adequately covered, when we have so few knowledgeable editors on that subject, and the tendency of the wiki seems to be to say, e.g., that there is only one species of Ginkgoaceae because only one is now seen living.

Maloideae would therefore seem to be a page similarly vulnerable to deletion, but I know that the outside world is currently relying on that page to make sense of a difficult subject, and I don't believe the material belongs at any other page title or page section. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, I was the one who emptied those categories, although I stopped short of deleting them while I had second thoughts. The problem was that having two parallel categorisation systems on top of each other made for an impenetrable mess in which Category:Ephedraceae was sister to Category:Ephedrales, with both defining the same set of articles (and likewise for Gnetales). There may be ways of including alternative classifications, but that wasn't it. This may be something to discuss separately from the Magnoliidae issue raised by Peter, however. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Maloideae could be made a redirect to Malinae. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I see. Well I guess those of us who care deeply about the allopolyploid origins of Kageneckia, Vauquelinia and Lindleya should withdraw, not daring to look to see what might eventuate. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

One point to keep in mind in whatever solution we consider: Brya is now one of the only two taxonomic editors at Wikidata. As you might expect, Wikidata items for taxa are entirely about names, regardless of taxon circumscription, which has led to comical relationships with parent taxa.

One possible solution would be to roll all name-based articles into articles titled "Taxonomy of X", so that it becomes a broader article about the history of application of the name. For taxa like Liliales, Magnoliidae, Equisetopsida, Bryophyta, and a number of others, there is probably enough information to warrant an entire article explaining the situation and clarifying the many different ways in which the name has been (or continues to be) applied. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a good idea, but "taxonomy of Magnoliidae" should, I think, be the same as "taxonomy of flowering plants". The current Magnoliids could be renamed Magnolianae (or split into Magnolianae and Taxonomy of Magnolianae). Magnoliids would be a redirect to Flowering plants. Taxonomy of flowering plants would then explain that they used to be called Angiospermae, Magnoliophyta, Magnoliopsida, and now Magnoliidae. Similarly, I think Taxonomy of Magnolianae should take the current group and explain all the previous names that it has had. Rather than each page being about the application of a name, I'd favour an orthogonal dissection of the subject matter. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your comments about the Magnoliids article. I wrote it specifically to expand the stub covering that clade in APG. The article compares APG against where the same taxa were located in earlier systems, and describes economic uses of the members. It still need a lot more info (morphology, distribution, ecology, fossils, etc.), but it's designed to be in line with APG classification. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It is confusing, and I agree that much more material would be a good thing. I've worked on the article a bit, so see what you think. Now I think it would be better to rename it to Magnolianae, and then rearrange the article to say that the same clade has been previously called Magnoliids and Eumagnoliids (I think; it's currently mentioned in a link from Illicium), and Magnoliidae, and that Magnoliidae is now the formal name of the much larger clade of flowering plants. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Until it becomes clear that the Chase & Reveal system is widely accepted (I've seen no evidence that it has been embraced by the rest of the APG or in journals), I'd be hesitant to take the step of renaming the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Merger: Botanical name into Botanical nomenclature

It seems silly to me that there are two articles for basically the same topic. Am I mistaken? Each start as follows: "Botanical nomenclature is the formal, scientific naming of plants." and "A botanical name is a formal scientific name...". Can anyone shed some light on why these two articles deserve to be separate? I have not suggested a merger in the talk pages because I'm not sure if the idea is warranted. How do members of WikiProject Plants feel about these pages? --MCEllis (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't want these to be merged under Botanical name, though it might in principle be possible to merge them in the other direction. I'd say that the most important part of the lead paragraph of Botanical nomenclature is "It is related to, but distinct from taxonomy." In other words, Botanical nomenclature discusses theoretical aspects, whereas Botanical name is rather practice-oriented. However, Botanical name is already quite large, and needs to be to cover the sorts of questions that might arise with someone coming from that particular phrase. (Actually, there's a chunk missing, and that is the definition of a name in botany; that a nom. inval. isn't a name.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the Botanical nomenclature title is the more important one to retain. If they are not to be merged, both articles need to better describe their relation to each other. I think it confuses the reader the way things are now.--MCEllis (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Seeking critique/review of {{Taxonbar}}

These last few weeks I've created many link templates that may be helpful for WikiProject Plants, including:
{{eFloras}}, {{Tropicos}}, {{Kew list}}, {{ThePlantList taxon}}, {{BioLib}}, {{GISD}}, {{uBIO}}, {{CatalogueofLife species}}, and updated/fixed others such as {{ThePlantList}} and {{GRIN}}.

But I'm especially curious about what this community thinks of the {{Taxonbar}} template I created. Inspired by Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy and {{Authority Control}}, it could potentially replace {{TaxonIds}}, which has been a controversial template at times. Unlike any other taxon link template before it, {{Taxonbar}} pulls all information from Wikidata just like {{Authority Control}}, so that contributors and editors don't have to include any information about the ids or links. With Wikidata as the backend, correcting at the template level would correct thousands of pages at once. Bots and others will continue to maintain Wikidata entries so that IDs and links remain up to date. This level of link maintenance was not previously possible in {{TaxonIds}} for example.

Simply add this tag to the bottom of a page: {{Taxonbar}}

There are also optional parameters to remove identifiers, allowing editors to keep the bar a reasonable size. It can already be found on the following pages to demonstrate:

• Blue jay
• Agaricus bisporus
• Quercus alba
• Rudbeckia hirta
• Chinchilla
• Chinchilla chinchilla
• Microstegium vimineum
• Oplismenus undulatifolius
• Urena lobata

Here is a sample of how it looks for Rudbeckia hirta (paired with the portal bar, for example):

Tell me what you think, or feel free to contribute to the project.--MCEllis (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

{{TaxonIds}} wasn't very controversial – just one person took against it. That said, and as was suggested at Template talk:TaxonIds, this is clearly the way forward. There may be questions about the implementation, such as the visual style, and which identifiers we include, but the principle is spot-on. I would argue that we should prefer major international databases to more local ones: is the Canadian link (VASCAN) necessary given the FNA link and the PLANTS link, both of which cover all of North America, for instance? I presume the intention is to provide links that a reader may find useful, rather than just report any links we have data for. ({{TaxonIds}} was largely a link aggregator from before WikiData took over that rôle.) --Stemonitis (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I see a lot of controversy and deletion discussions in the archives of various projects regarding {{TaxonIds}} as well as on the Template_talk:TaxonIds page, though I didn't check how many separate people were against it. Overall I think it's a problem that {{TaxonIds}} is aggregating information separately and isn't linked to Wikidata. I'm not sure if it could or should be re-written or updated to incorporate Wikidata or if it should be retired. {{TaxonIds}} is also much more work to add to and maintain on individual pages as you have to look up many of the identifiers manually before adding it to a page. It is probably especially a daunting task across thousands of pages because of these discrepancies. As you say, I think it would be good to remove VASCAN from {{Taxonbar}}, as ideally that info is included in the other links. We can definitely remove databases that seem redundant or unhelpful overall.--MCEllis (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

"Kew list" should be replaced by the proper name or abbreviation: World Checklist of Selected Plant Families or "WCSP".

One issue is that The Plant List is just an aggregator, so for a species when its data is obtained from Tropicos, WCSP (not "WCSP in review"), etc., it's completely redundant. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If you take a look at {{Kew list}} you will see World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (WCSP) is cited each time. Because it is being hosted by Kew, I have mixed feelings about renaming the template. I am following the standard of the {{Kew list}} template in all other wikis and going further to cite the full name of WCSP. In addition, it is my view that The Plant List is a highly valuable resource because of the fact that it gets its data from so many trusted authorities. In {{ThePlantList species}} I include the data source of ThePlantList entry in the citation.--MCEllis (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

WCSP is hosted by Kew, sure, but it's not a "Kew list", and it shouldn't be called that. There are other lists much more accurately called a "Kew list", e.g. the Kew Herbarium Catalogue.

Linking to the IPNI entry would also be very useful. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I really do strongly object to the appearance of {{Taxonbar}} as it is now at Dracaena braunii, for example. It shows a link to the entry in The Plant List but not to its source, WCSP, even though TPL uses the WCSP identifier. This is completely illogical. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is an abbreviated list. There probably wouldn't be room to state the source of every link for ThePlantList, but the identifier starts with "kew-" which should tell you something. I made changes to Dracaena braunii to remove the original WCSP reference as Dracaena braunii is now considered a synonym of Dracaena sanderiana Sander, Gard. Chron. by WCSP, though other sources have not yet caught up.

If you would like to propose or suggest a different design I'm open. I am also okay with moving the {{kew-list}} template to {{WCSP}} but there is a template by that name already, though rarely used and not very helpful. We can easily migrate the pages off of that template and have them use the newer template. IPNI is included in taxonbar but I took it off of some pages such as Rudbeckia hirta to prevent too many links which would cause the bar to go onto two lines. Again, this whole design is based off of {{Authority Control}}, which is a fairly well received template. We do want our pages to look pretty so I'm looking for any input anyone has on the design.--MCEllis (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Peter, {{kew-list}} is separate from {{taxonbar}}. Taxonbar depends on Wikidata which doesn't currently support WCSP as far as I can tell (I think this should show all the database IDs that Wikidata handles). I assume it would be possible somehow to take the three letter code used by TPL to identify the source database and link directly to the source, bypassing TPL. Linking TPL is due to Wikidata's behavior, not the taxonbar template per se. I'd imagine taxonbar would call another template to resolve TPL sources if that were to be implemented. (edit) TPL uses "kew" for both WCSP and WCSP in review, so I guess these sources can't be distinguished.

MCEllis, I wouldn't worry about keeping the bar on a single line. Whether it fits on a single line depends on the readers screen size and display configuration anyway. Plantdrew (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Overall, I like this a lot. I've never added external links, but I could see myself adding taxonbar if it's agreed that it is useful. My only concern revolves around the reliability of Wikidata. Are we going to get inappropriate links from Wikidata? I'm not sure. The problems I'm aware of on Wikidata are: 1) inconsistent circumscriptions of higher taxa, 2) garbage entries from Catalogue of Life via Swedish wikipedia, and 3) inconsistency between Wikipedias (and competing sources) regarding whether or not a name is considered a synonym. We're not relying on Catalogue of Life here, so I don't think 2 is going to be a problem. 3 means that the taxonbar might miss some sources, but I don't think it will get anything wrong. 1 could be a problem; I'd hold off on putting the taxonbar on higher taxa, but there are many species pages where using it would be useful. Plantdrew (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata .. doesn't currently support WCSP as far as I can tell – but doesn't that point to the key problem, which is that Wikidata is a totally separate wiki, and to influence it, we would have to work over there as well. EncycloPetey explained above the problems caused by the small number of non-expert editors at Wikidata.

We don't let the automated taxobox system ({{Automatic taxobox}}, {{Speciesbox}}, etc.) pick up classifications from Wikispecies; we rightly use "in house" templates that can be maintained by our WikiProjects. I'm totally disillusioned with links to external sister projects – whether Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikidictionary or even Commons. Wikidata regularly links the wrong taxon articles in different language wikis, through the editors there not understanding the biology involved. Wikispecies is full of taxonomy with poor or no sourcing. Commons has many misidentified images of organisms (sometimes based on obsolete names). However, at least with Commons we can choose which image(s) we include in an article. As soon as a template picks up data from outside, we have given up control, and with it is likely to go consistency and quality. If we want a way of linking to multiple plant databases, then we surely we should maintain the data ourselves? Peter coxhead (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)I have to say that adding

Do we have the editor base to maintain the data ourselves? TaxonIds is used on 6756 pages (out of 300k+ taxa), and doesn't include very many databases. If TaxonIds supported more databases, I could open a dozen browser tabs for different databases, search each for a particular binomial, select the appropriate result, and paste a unique and (hopefully) stable ID from the URL and paste that ID into TaxonIds. Doable, but I'm not doing it myself. And when the IDs aren't stable? Well, we can link to a query with a binomial filled in (and the query link might not be stable either, but at least if it's linked by a template it would be easy to fix). Tropicos links other databases mostly by prefilled queries. NCBI seems to have the richest links to other databases, and their links are a mixture of queries and ID links (I'm not sure how NCBI's link to Wikipedia works, but there's no certainly guarantee of stability in our URLs).

It's all over my head. These are issues for the semantic web or something like that? Are LSIDs the answer (and does anybody actually use LSIDs to link somewhere else)? Meanwhile, plant articles are getting the Wikidata enabled Authority Control template added to them. Wheat has authority control links to the German and Japanese national libraries. Wikipedia's article on wheat/Triticum goes to the German entry for wheat/Triticum aestivum. At least Wikidata has 3 separate items for wheat, Triticum and Triticum aestivum. Plantdrew (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a good replacement of TaxonIds, which was created before WikiData. WikiProject Taxonomy seems to have way more data than we ever gathered with TaxonIds, and we should make use of that data. Certainly, sometimes concepts are mangled in WikiData, but (I've done this myself a few times) by going through the language links and checking other concepts, they can be separated. Doing this once in a central place is better than maintaining templates with links in all the different pages. The links from NCBI Taxonomy to Wikipedia were added by User:Rdmpage, but I'm not sure what the current status is (the page [1] is out of date.) MichaK (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, there is no way we can keep all of the {{taxonids}} links and boxes maintained, we already hardly have enough resources to keep just the names of the plant articles up to date. What I don't like is there is no guarantee any one {{taxonids}} box will have the link you are looking for.

Perhaps the list of links could be collapsible into a smaller container, that way these links don't bother the average reader? Similar to the collapsing synonyms on {{taxobox}}. These links don't necessarily have to be in a {{navbox}} bar, though I kind of like it. I'm sure we can come up with some good ideas if we try. --MCEllis (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I added {{Taxonbar}} to today's featured article: Alpine chough. It looks pretty good to me. --MCEllis (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I also want to point out how silly I think the {{taxonids}} box looks on the last featured species: Telopea truncata. It really makes the bottom of the page look like an afterthought, creating a tremendous amount of whitespace below the citations.--MCEllis (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

{{Taxonbar}} certainly looks better than {{taxonids}}, and is thus definitely an improvement, if we have to have these links, which I'm still not convinced are a good idea. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

We are certainly faced with an embarrassment of riches here, but also great confusion for the average editor, since there are now so many overlapping templates. It would be helpful to have somewhere they are all listed and their purposes explained with examples. As far as Telopea truncata goes, it could be improved by placing Commons inline and adding an external links section. On the other hand I can see that a bar fits better than a box. Templates like Taxonids were an improvement over numerous entries under external links, therefore there is an argument for an aggregator. But I do not see that having to look up identifiers is a problem for taxonids because one would have to do that anyway if one was going to list these databases in something like external links or a bibliography. Of course aggregators are no help if one actually wants to cite one of its components in the text, therefore it is for "left overs". And for Wikispecies, it takes up less room. I was actually working on expanding taxonids when this discussion suddenly erupted.

So what databases should be included in an a aggregator? It would be helpful to know what databases are actually being used across the project, and only include the common ones. As far as maintenance, it is up to the person using an aggregator or template to verify its content and accuracy. Anything linking to an external source is prone to linkrot. As far as whether something is Kew or not, most databases now are collaborative efforts and frequently involve Kew. So attribution seems a bit pointless. Each database should have an article page anyway.

One advantage of aggregators is that it provides a checklist for one to consider - just where is this taxon listed?

A practical point. How exactly would one "replace" something like taxonids with taxonbar? I see that was done for the Telopea article, but across the board would be Herculean!

I think we are going to have to test this against older more conventional templates before making a project wide decision. I shall certainly do so on my own projects.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I ran into trouble almost immediately on a taxonomy subpage. As expected taxonids worked fine but not taxonbar. It needs the wikidata identifier, so how can one input that?. Which raises another point - shouldn't the output data include the wikidata identifier? Regarding the discussion about trimming it, I don't think it is necessary to remove items, given that it is only a bar and there is an option to suppress anyway. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as the appearance of taxonids goes, it would not be too difficult to convert into to a bar using flatlist as in taxonbar--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Also some taxa produce a blank bar. I looked in Wikidata and found an identifier, but Wikidata had not linked it to any of the databases--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Another problem. On some taxa taxonids, taxonbar and authority control are all returning different fields, necessitating inclusion of all three--Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide links to the pages you are discussing? I would be especially interested to know what taxa are producing a blank bar. And which pages are returning different taxon identifiers? Of course the data of these two is kept completely separately from one another, and everything is input into {{Taxonids}}completely manually, so I would expect some differences but I would also hope Wikidata has the correct links at least 80-85% of the time. Wikidata entries can be updated if you know what you are doing, but don't try to merge or move pages on Wikidata, their database is managed very differently than Wikipedia. I really don't think {{Taxonid}} and {{Taxonbar}} should ever be used together on the same page, while Authority control links have little to do with taxonomy, so we don't need to pay too much attention to it. If you absolutely must link to something while using {{Taxonbar}}, put it in the external links list.--MCEllis (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Michael Goodyear: I noticed {{Taxonbar}} was blank on Hippeastrineae, and mostly blank on Commelinids. But honestly I wouldn't expect there do be a lot of data on clades, tribes, and subtribes. Most of these databases are simply organizing records of Genera and Species, with some organizing data for Families as well. Not to mention that the fine folks over at Wikidata probably don't even know what a tribe is. Though like I said, I haven't seen any entries for tribes in these databases anyways(though I can't say that I've really looked for them either). Tomorrow I will have to add documentation that {{Taxonbar}} is really only meant to be put on articles relating to standard Taxonomic rankings such as Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Families, Genera, and Species. At this time I don't think there is enough data within the databases or within Wikidata for {{Taxonbar}} to support tribes and clades so I think we need to leave it off of pages like Hippeastrineae because its not following classical Taxonomic rank. Maybe one day.

Also, try to keep {{Taxonbar}} and other bars as low on the page as possible. Always below external links. Authority Control and Categories should be the only things lower than {{Taxonbar}}. Thanks. --MCEllis (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

So in the end, there is a place for both taxonbar and taxonids --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can only say "ugh" – clutter which can be misleading, but if that's the consensus... Peter coxhead (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, what is misleading clutter to you? It is of course the responsibility of the page contributor to make sure all links they add to a page are valid and take the reader to the intended page(s). Are you still completely opposed to any information coming from Wikidata? Wikidata was created specifically to store structured data relating to the sister project articles such as these identifiers. I very much want to know if theres anything we can do to ease your concerns. I'm still not sure what you are asking for. I renamed {{Kew list}} to {{WCSP}} as you asked. The old {{WCSP}} became {{WCSP cite}} and I worked very hard to change all of my external link templates (Other than {{Taxonbar}}) to citation format based on your concerns. --MCEllis (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, let me say that I think the current version of {{WCSP}} is a useful additional resource.

My problem with sister projects is twofold where they relate to taxonomy. Firstly, they are frequently out-of-date or incorrect in my experience. Secondly, they don't cope well with alternative views. Sure, here we have to choose one taxonomy for article titles and taxoboxes, but an article can (and indeed must) discuss alternative views, based on citing reliable sources. Wikidata is fine for unchanging data – a person's date of birth for example. Taxonomy is far from unchanging, and regularly controversial. Treating taxa as fixed pieces of data misrepresents what they actually are, namely the opinions of taxonomists, sometime with a consensus behind them, sometimes not.

For example, we here use the APG III system. Quite a bit of it is far from uncontroversial. The taxon "Scilloideae" is part of APG III, but is not accepted by most specialists in the group, who use "Hyacinthaceae" instead, which produces a very different circumscription for "Asparagaceae". You can't treat "Asparagaceae" a single, fixed piece of "data" with a unique ID, since Asparagaceae sensu lato (sensu APG III) is not the same taxon as Asparagaceae sensu stricto (as meant by those who separate off Hyacinthaceae, Aphyllanthaceae, etc.) Peter coxhead (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Should I add a system to {{Taxonbar}} to override inaccurate or missing data provided by Wikidata? The problem is it will be hard to maintain and to keep track of which manually added parameters differ from Wikidata and which are simply missing from Wikidata.

Irregardless, I will add support for the "others=" parameter of {{Taxonids}} and more. The parameters will operate identically to {{Taxonids}} in that you will be able to to specify identifiers manually if they are not included in Wikidata. {{Taxonbar}} should also be able to support the majority of {{Taxon}}'s parameters eventually as well.

Whereas TaxonIds supports the following syntax:

{{TaxonIds
    |wikispecies=Mus musculus
    |ncbi=10090
    |eol=328450 
    |itis=180366
    |others=[http://arctos.database.museum/name/Mus%20musculus Arctos]
}}

I could fairly easily allow contributors to list identifiers missing from the Wikidata entries.

With this change, {{Taxonbar}} would accept the following syntax as well as plain {{Taxonbar}}:

{{Taxonbar
    |ncbi=10090
    |eol=328450 
    |itis=180366
    |others=[http://arctos.database.museum/name/Mus%20musculus Arctos]
}}

What we need to agree on is whether or not a contributor should be allowed to override Wikidata identifiers that we feel are incorrect.

Some parameters (from {{Taxonids}}) not supported by Wikidata will also be added soon (are supported now), including parameters such as WCSP=, paleodb=, (and) emonocot=. (Implementation of other= may not be possible since it could mess up formatting of the bar. Support of grin= may also not be possible but it can easily support grinurl= once updated.) Below are all currently supported (wikidata) parameters, which only accept parameter=no at the moment, but I plan for it to be(are now) able to accept ids in the exact same format as {{Taxonids}}.

Parameter Type Property ID bhl BHL p687 biolib BioLib p838 eol EoL p830 gbif GBIF p846 plantlist PlantList p1070 tropicos Tropicos p960 itis ITIS p815 iucn IUCN p627 ncbi NCBI p685 grin GRIN p1421 fossilworks Fossilworks p842 worms WoRMS p850 fishbase FishBase p938 msw MSW p959 ipni IPNI author p586 ipni IPNI p961 mycobank MycoBank p962

Parameter Type Property ID algaebase AlgaeBase P1348 indexfungorum Index Fungorum p1391 fna FNA p1727 foc FOC p1747 zoobank ZooBank p1746 watson Watson & Dallwitz p1761 plants pLANTS p1772 grassbase GrassBase p1832 faunaeuropaea Fauna Europaea p1895 conifers Conifers.org p1940 lpsn LPSN p1991 plazi Plazi p1992 avibase Avibase p2026 afpd AFPD p2036 species Species+ p2040 xeno-canto Xeno-canto p2426 panartic panarctic Flora p2434

Screenshot of Interwiki link to Wikidata entry from Wikipedia article.

{{Authority control}} supports input of parameters like these when the data is missing from Wikidata. When parameters are specified in the Authority control tag, the page is tagged with the hidden category Category:Pages using authority control with parameters However, I do not believe {{Authority control}} allows a user to override an existing Wikidata identifier.--MCEllis (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

From all this I continued to learn not to trust Wikidata. Rather than override Wikidata it would be more constructive to correct it, which I do a lot. So if you use taxonbar you need to check the output for accuracy, and if something is not output by taxonbar don't assume it is not there - it just means wikidata failed to import it. So feel free to add it. Not only does it not support WCLSPF but also does not support eMonocot which is an important collaborative initiative. Can I repeat my request to output the wikidata link to facilitate editing it? Otherwise I have to go to wikidata and search it. Could it also support Commons and Wikispecies to reduce clutter?--Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as the other question goes - do we need external links? I would say yes. Linking to all the bases provides validation and a tool for other editors to find additional information. Look at all this as work in progress. I will try not to develop taxonids further if all that information can be incorporated into taxonbar. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Michael Goodyear:, The easiest way to get to the wikidata entry is from the sidebar on any article with an entry. No need to search through Wikidata. I added a screenshot I took on the right.--MCEllis (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Oops, my oversight. Clearly we are all on a learning curve here on this one. I am happy to add taxonbar to taxa I am working on and see what return I get. If I get a blank I have added that taxa to wikidata. It seems there may be some taxa that taxonbar will not work for. I will clarify my comments above about a place for both taxonids and taxonbar. With a little more experience I think there is no reason to include both on the same page. The few identifiers not handled so far in taxonbar can simply be external links. Thanks for all your work on this. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Best resources for common names?

I have seen a lot of common names on pages without citations, and I'm not sure the best resources to use to verify these common names, or to find common names for species or genera for articles that desperately could use one. For example: the Tupelo page said that Tupelo is also known as black gum, but there was no citation. I am under the impression that common name is only used for the species Nyssa sylvatica. I was unable to find a source calling the genus black gum but I'm not sure what database(s) might be useful for this case. I took down the black gum name on the genus. I also question the common name pepperidge tree being applied at the genus level as well.

If there is a good way to find common names for a species or genus, we should document it in this project (if it isn't already).--MCEllis (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Almost by definition there isn't a good way to find English names for a plant, since they vary from country to country and by region to region.

• GRIN Taxonomy has a list of English names for those taxa that it covers. It confirms, for example, that "black-gum" is used for Nyssa sylvatica – see here. (Side point: I wish editors would preserve the hyphenation of the source; "black gum" and "black-gum" are not the same.)
• The BSBI has an "official" list of preferred English names for plants (at BSBI List 2007, Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland, archived from the original (xls) on 2015-02-25, retrieved 2014-10-17). The scientific names are a bit out-of-date now. These names are used in Stace's flora of the British Isles, which is the "bible" for British field botanists, and in most other British sources.
• The APNI lists English names used in sources in an exemplary fashion. See here for Rorippa palustris for example.
• Some sources, like the online Flora of North America, sometimes give English names and sometimes don't. For example, FNA gives the highly misleading "skunk-cabbage" for Lysichiton americanus here, but doesn't give any English names for Rorippa palustris.

In my view, the best sources for English names that are actually used and hence might genuinely be called "common" are usually more popular books, usually only online in Google previews, if at all.

Peter coxhead (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I stupidly forgot to say that User:Plantdrew has been doing a fantastic job adding English names with sources to hundreds (if not thousands) of plant articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Separate question: where's the evidence that "tupelo" is a more commonly used name for the genus than the scientific name Nyssa? If there isn't any, why is the article at the English name? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Very useful discussion.

Searching for "tupelo" on google has 10,900,000 results which is ten times more results than the botanical name - "Nyssa" on google has only 1,010,000 results. In the same regard, searching for "black-gum" on google has 27,100,000 results and the botanical name "Nyssa sylvatica" on google only has 127,000 results. However, going by WP:FLORA can one say that the genus Nyssa "has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany" which would justify retaining the title Tupelo? I doubt it.

It seems to me that as long as we are able to justify titling the dogwood article Cornus (genus) then the tupelo page should absolutely be titled Nyssa (genus). Edit: Keep in mind there is a disambiguation page at Nyssa. Edit 2: INFACT, why is Cornus at Cornus (genus) rather than Cornus? It seems obvious that the name "Cornus" almost always refers to the genus Cornus. There are few other uses of "Cornus" to disambiguate.

I feel this is important: if botanical articles are going to be titled by their common name, they had better be correct in all other naming throughout the article (with citations on the common and botanical names!). Is the name pepperidge even used enough to state it a common name for Nyssa sylvatica? Since posting the topic of discussion, I have come to the conclusion that GBIF may be one of the best sources to find a list of common vernaculars. For Nyssa sylvatica see here and for the genus, see here. What a fantastic list! It even cites how each database has spelled and hyphenated the name. Combined with GRIN, and comparing google hits, it should be fairly easy to whittle down to only the most used names.--MCEllis (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: What is your take on common names and title formatting? And is anything stoping us from moving Cornus → Cornus (disambiguation) and Cornus (genus) → Cornus?--MCEllis (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Common North American/British tree genera are usually at the common name, which makes some sense to me (e.g. oak, pine, elm)). But there are some cases of common name titles where the genus isn't particularly common; Tupelo, Witch-hazel, Kentucky coffeetree. Tupelo Google hits are influenced by Tupelo, Mississippi. I went through incoming links to Tupelo some time ago and retargeted a bunch to the city. That title is likely to continue to attract wrong links. And I haven't been happy about Cornus (genus). Dogwood is a very well known common name for a well known genus, more like elm/pine than tupelo/witch-hazel. The problem with dogwood as a title is that I don't think dwarf species (e.g. Cornus canadensis) are usually considered dogwoods, and there's been some edit-warring at dogwood (disambiguation) concerning Australian plants in other genera (although as far as I can determine, Australian web hits for dogwood primarily intend Cornus; it's not native, but it is a popular ornamental there). However, I've only considered dogwood as a title to get rid of the parenthetical disambiguator in "Cornus (genus)". I think it's fair to initiate a move request to establish the genus as the primary topic of Cornus. Plantdrew (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: With all of that in mind, it seems the best way to follow WP:FLORA and current titles of North American/British tree genera would be to leave Tupelo where it is and move Cornus (genus) → Dogwood. This would successfully avoid parenthetical disambiguators in both titles. I honestly don't think the dwarf species should hold up such a move. Even Cornaceae is referred to as the dogwood family even though there are other genera, including potentially Nyssa.--MCEllis (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@MCEllis: absolutely not. "Tupelo" and "dogwood" for the genus are classic examples of 'back invented' English names. An English name is used for one species, or what seems to non-botanists like one species. Then the authors of popular plant books qualify these names to distinguish different species, 'correcting' common usage. Finally the original name is taken to be a genus name. Meanwhile the real common name continues to be used in its original sense, for a species or group of species not distiguished by non-botanists.

The argument from the family name is irrelevant. It's like saying that because Ericaceae is often called the heath family, Erica should be at "Heath".

As Plantdrew points out above, Google hits mean nothing given the other uses of "tupelo". I see no reason not to move the article to the scientific name. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I love the Nyssa name. Nyssa sylvatica is my favorite tree. I agree with 100% of what both of you have said about this genus. I just don't want to see a parenthetical disambiguator added to it such as Cornus (genus) has now. If we can move "Nyssa" → Nyssa (disambiguation) and Tupelo → Nyssa, I'm 100% on board. It is by FAR the most viewed and searched for use of the term "Nyssa."

Its the dogwoods I'd still like more of an explanation on. If Acer is Maple, Quercus is Oak, Fagus is Beech, Pinus is Pine, Hamamelis is Witch-hazel, and Ulmus is Elm would it really be a crime to consider calling Cornus Dogwood? Is there anything more to say about the dogwoods @Plantdrew:? We may not all agree with the Dogwood name idea but can we at least agree to have "(genus)" taken out of its name?

I don't think Erica is a good comparison due to the criteria of WP:Flora. I am looking for a civilized discussion of WP:Flora regarding a tree species which I see as having significant "horticultural or cultural importance".--MCEllis (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@MCEllis: an important difference, I think, is that a well-known Cornus species, namely Cornus canadensis, is essentially herbaceous, and commonly called something like "bunchberry" rather than "Canadian dogwood", which would suggest a different habit (at least to me).

Incidently, the Maple article opens oddly at present; normally articles start with their titles, so I think it should start something like "Maples (Acer) are a genus of ...", in the style of Pine or Elm.

Sorry if you think my comments above about the irrelevance of family names aren't "civilized"; they certainly weren't meant to be "uncivilized". I just think that the English name of the family isn't relevant to the issue of what title to use for an article about the genus Cornus. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Back to the general issue, I think the gold standard ought to be books that compile common names genuinely commonly used by lay people (as opposed to vernacular names invented by botanists). Or at least we should have books that make the distinction between botanist's vernacular names and actual common names. James Britten's Dictionary of English Plant Name makes this distinction, and has been available on Google Books (also on Internet Archive, but it's so full of OCR errors there to be practically unusable). Elaine Nowick's Historical Common Names of Great Plains Plants is another excellent book, but only covers a small part of the world. One downside of books is that they include common names that may be of historical interest, but are little used today (Britten's book came out in 1886, and Nowick's title is explicit). From what I see on Google, "pepperidge tree" exists today mainly as the name of some streets and a golf course (although people living on those streets might want to know what they are named for). The other downside of books it that they are hard to access, and right now we basically don't use them at all for referencing common names. So let's talk web-based resources.

I've been adding common names from the USDA PLANTS database. I don't consider it reliable for taxonomic purposes, but it's easy to download. Because of the ease of downloading, the USDA common names have already spread all over the web. Encyclopedia of Life uses them. Various scraper sites (e.g. Dave's Garden) use them. I don't think we can ignore them, but it's worth noting that they are largely botanist's vernacular names rather than common names per se.

Sites that aggregate common names from other sources can be useful (e.g. GRIN, GBIF, APNI) but I think we ought to go back and check the cited sources. As Peter noted, GRIN doesn't respect formatting in sources; I've seen GRIN stripping hyphens from BSBI names that have hyphens, and adding hyphens to BSBI names that don't have them. GRIN is also now pulling some common names from Wikipedia (and only briefly displayed Wikipedia as the source, it now just cites "web document"). And for some reason, GRIN doesn't list USDA PLANTS names (probably due to intra-agency rivalry, both sites are funded by the USDA).

I'd like to deal with common names from other good sources such as Flora of North America and The Jepson Manual, but it's a lot of work, and it still usually boils down to these being invented vernacular names rather than common names used by lay people. Plantdrew (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I commend strongly Plantdrew's absolutely correct distinction between "botanist's invented vernacular names" (dumbing down for the masses) and "actual common names". The latter are a useful addition to an article, if well-sourced; the former less so, unless there is evidence that they have genuinely become common. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wording of articles at common name

I (boldly) edited the Witch-hazel article from "Witch-hazel (Hamamelis, /ˌhæməˈmiːlɪs/)[1] is a genus of flowering plants" to "Witch-hazel (Hamamelis, /ˌhæməˈmiːlɪs/)[1] is the vernacular name for a genus of flowering plants..." because genus is a very specific taxonomic term. Am I splitting hairs here? If not, then shouldn't species articles that are at common name titles also begin by saying that "(common name) is the vernacular name for a species of plants...."? First Light (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@First Light: actually, no, because our articles are about the taxon (i.e. the plants) not the name. Somewhere in the archives there's a discussion of this. A former editor, Brya, used to start all articles by saying that "X is the name of ..."; all of them have been changed following consensus. As often happens, we don't seem to have documented this decision; I'll try to find it in the archives and add it to the project pages somewhere. So the Witch-hazel article needs to be changed back. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

If you search the archives for "Brya" you'll find a lot of material; one relevant bit is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive53#Wording of plant articles. Note that in this thread I started off with some sympathy for "... is a name ..." wording, but soon realized that this was wrong. I believe there's always been a strong consensus in the project for the wording "... is a species/genus/family/..." (or the plural with scientific names for ranks above genus – see WP:PLANTS/TAXONNUMBER). It seems more natural to me to use the plural English name for a genus too; "Witch-hazels (Hamamelis) are a genus of flowering plants...", but this is a fine point, perhaps, but see Pine or Elm. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I've now added a bit to the project page at WP:PLANTS/NOTABOUTNAME. The examples are taken from FA/GA articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You can always add a section about the name, if that seems important. You could also go with Hamamelis, commonly known as Witch-hazel, is a genus..." Guettarda (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely; information about the scientific name and where appropriate the vernacular names can be both valuable and interesting – too often there's just a list of English names with no explanation.

Another issue about the opening sentence is that it's usual to start with the article title, as per WP:BEGIN: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." So if the article is at "Hamamelis", then begin as Guettarda suggests above. But if the article is at "Witch-hazel" then begin either "Witch-hazel is ..." or "Witch-hazels are ...". Peter coxhead (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all. First Light (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Topic Coordination For Hypericum

Hello! I am Fritzmann2002. I have spent a lot of time working on creating articles for the many species of Hypericum. This process is very time consuming, and I am not very good at creating large articles with many different features, etcetera. To try to better the coverage of this interesting genus, I wanted to call together some editors to collaborate and learn with me and to accomplish these goals:

• Bring the main Hypericum article to Good Article status
• Have a Start Class article for every species in the genus, or at least those in the selected species list
• Have an image of said species of every article
• Create the necessary non-article material, e.g. redirects, categories, stub templates, and the like

If you would like to assist me in this, please see the talk page and add your name. I don't expect to get a lot of help, but anything is much appreciated.

Thank you, and Happy Wiki-ing,

Fritzmann2002 15:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that "Selected species" list is a worry, to start with. Who selected it, and how? It would be much better to have a comprehensive list, as a separate article if necessary, sourced to some reliable source (The Plant List and Hypericum online might be candidates). Given that there are 460+ species in the genus, and only 60-odd currently in Category:Hypericum, you're proposing creating 400 new articles, with pictures (Wikimedia Commons seems to have pictures of only about 100 species, incidentally). This is quite a sizeable challenge, and would probably require everyone at this project to devote a large chunk of their time to it. Your enthusiasm is admirable, but I wonder if you realised quite how onerous a task this would be. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to find a more achievable focus for your goals. There are few genera of that size which have ever been able to meet such goals. If you can't do everything on your list, then which task is your priority?--MCEllis (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've knocked together a list of Hypericum species from The Plant List (chiefly because the format used by "Hypericum online" made it harder to scrape). There are only a few species with articles that are not included on the list – 3 or 4 IUCN-listed species with Polbot stubs and, more surprisingly, Hypericum elodes, all of which are treated as 'Unresolved' by TPL. The subspecies of Hypericum annulatum may be better treated as full species, too. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at a 2011 dissertation it looks as if Hypericum elodes might end up back at Elodes palustris, but the standard British sources still have it as Hypericum elodes. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

New article mentions "the plant Maytenus austroyunnanensi" (text copied) from that article)

Hi plant people,
In the text of Streptomyces mayteni there is "Streptomyces mayteni is a bacterium species from the genus of Streptomyces which has been isolated from roots from the plant Maytenus austroyunnanensi."
I can't find a mention of a plant of this name in the usual sources. Sure doesn't seem to be of the Maytenus. Could it possibly be a synonym of a plant of a different Genus?
What do you think about this? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a typo - the correct spelling is austroyunnanensis'. Flora of China recognises this species. EOL documents it as accepted by ITIS and NCBI. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Vine/bine mess

I just looked at the vine article yesterday, its full of inaccuracies and is not written with proper botanical terminology. Many of the photos aren't even true vines at all. Over the next few days I'll be working on splitting the article, and moving much of what doesn't belong over to bine (botany) and adding a description of the distinction in the vine article. There are hundreds, possibly thousands of plant articles here referring to certain climbing plants incorrectly as vines or "twining vines" when they are actually bines. For example, I corrected Lonicera japonica and Chinese yam which are now referenced as bines. This is all of course just another case of massive public misunderstanding of basic botany but it'll most likely end up driving me nuts.

At least Wiktionary has bine right:

"bine ‎(plural bines) 1. (botany) A climbing plant which climbs by its shoots growing in a helix around a support (distinct from a vine, which climbs using tendrils or suckers)."

--MCEllis (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that the distinction belongs in wikipedia, as "bine" is a rare term. Botany sometimes uses more precision and often less because real plants can be difficult to categorize, and "vine" is a perfectly appropriate term, particularly on the many pages that aim to provide a brief accessible description of a plant. The term "bine" is not accepted by the Flora of North America glossary or by Beentje, H.; Williamson, J. (2010), The Kew Plant Glossary: an Illustrated Dictionary of Plant Terms, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew: Kew Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) or by Hickey, M.; King, C. (2001), The Cambridge Illustrated Glossary of Botanical Terms, Cambridge University Press{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). The sources at bine (botany) are (1) a dictionary noting a usage from 1727 and (2) a dubious article that could be classed as a blog. Neither of those is suitable as a botany source. The wiktionary entry is unsourced. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The Kew Plant Glossary under Vine says "climbing herbaceous or woody plant with small stem diameter; = climber, which is preferred." Under "Climber" it says "a plant that grows upwards by attaching itself to other structures which it uses as supports; by contrast, a scrambler does not attach itself to its supports." Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize the "bine" term isn't in use by modern botanical sources. Perhaps bine (botany) should be merged into vine and mention that "bine" is no longer used, but refers to "twining vines". Seems like "twining vine" is the proper term afterall. I'm slightly confused by the climber term, what do we call the plant if it has a larger stem diameter? Just "vine"? Good idea looking it up with FNA and Kew. Thanks.--MCEllis (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Woody climbers are lianas. British usage tends to restrict vine to Vitis, and Google tells me that the stems of hop are bines, but I only known bine as a fossilised element in woodbine (itself archaic for honeysuckle) and columbine. (I might refer to the plant as a climber, and the stem as a vine, but in doing so I might be being influenced by American usage.) Sometimes a distinction is made between climbers and ramblers. In the same semantic field you'll find bramble and briar. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems like the vine page could be broken up into subsections to make these distinctions. --MCEllis (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Vine should embrace lianas. As I understand English, vines can be woody. Vine says it is "in the narrowest sense is the grapevine (Vitis)". Liana says "There are also temperate lianas, for example the members of the Clematis or Vitis (wild grape) genera". I'm not going to argue with any of that. Vitis can be lianas and vines. The Vine article should explain how that term is applied; woody or not, twining or not. Plantdrew (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirects involving monotypic taxa

The redirect categorization templates {{R to monotypic taxon}} and {{R from monotypic taxon}} now both allow the addition of |plant. This puts the redirects into the subcategories Redirects to monotypic taxa of plants and Redirects from monotypic taxa of plants. I've updated the documentation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants#R templates for redirects involving monotypic taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Assistance appreciated

Could someone please have a look at c:Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Anemone pulsatilla? Thx. --Achim (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done, thank you very much. --Achim (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy on Creating an Article for Every Species

I was not able to find WP's policy or guide line on creating a separate article for every species. I was looking at List of Eucalyptus species, and I saw that some have their own article, even a very short one, and the others don't. I was wondering what is desired, a separate article for each, or a redirect to the main or list page. Thanks. WannaBeEditor (talk) 05:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

If it's been described in an academic journal, then the issue is likely about whether or not an editor has had the time to write an article about it. Wikipedia's general notability guideline is WP:GNG. The other WikiProject editors might be able to help you (without the help request) Mkdw^talk 06:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Grass name question

The page now at Jarava ichu has a tangled titling history, but is of some importance as "ichu grass" or some similar English name appears in a number of articles relating to South America.

GrassBase here prefers the name Stipa ichu; The Plant List here follows Kew (as expected); Tropicos here gives a long list of sources accepting Stipa ichu. On the other hand, ITIS here accepts Jarava ichu. Anyone able to shed more light on this matter? Should the article be moved? (It would need an admin.) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Flora of North America online for grasses links to the web manual, which states "As treated here, Stipa is a genus of 150–200 species, all of which are native to Eurasia or northern Africa" then explains that the situation is not yet understood, with more work needed. Although the citations at Jarava ichu are not wonderful, I think that leaving it at that name is not unreasonable. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It seems best to leave it there and add a taxonomy section briefly discussing the alternatives. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Fern monotypy question

According to Osmundastrum cinnamomeum, the genus Osmundastrum is monotypic; in which case the article should be moved to Osmundastrum in line with policy for monospecific genera.

However, The Plant List entry claims there are two species. As is regularly the case, this appears to be an error in extracting information from Tropicos – particularly egregious in this case since Tropicos clearly marks Osmundastrum asiaticum Tagawa as illegimate, not "accepted"! Tropicos gives the Accepted Name of Osmundastrum asiaticum (Fernald) X.C. Zhang as Osmundastrum cinnamomeum (see here). So on the basis of Tropicos, Osmundastrum is indeed monotypic.

However, World Ferns at the Catalogue of Life accepts Osmundastrum claytonianum here, and claims to be based on a taxonomic review in November 2015, suggesting the genus is not monotypic.

I don't know enough about ferns to be able to decide: can anyone help? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As currently circumscribed, Osmundastrum contains a single species: Osmundastrum cinnamomeum. Not sure why World Ferns is accepting Osmundastrum claytonianum: all the recent literature I know of treats it as part of Osmunda (including the phylogenetic studies by Yatabe et al. in 1999 and Metzgar et al. in 2008). The Asian and North American lineages are probably distinct at some level, but I don't think there's broad support for treating O. asiaticum as a species rather than a subspecies; Zhang and coauthors' treatment in Flora of China, which postdates his publication of the name at species level, lumps everything back into one species (although I find FOC very lumpy for the pteridophytes I know), and Xiang et al. in their 2015 review of east Asian-North American disjunctions in ferns and lycophytes, treat it as one species. I think it would be best to move the article to Osmundastrum unless and until someone does a more detailed study of the Asian vs. North American material that supports specific distinction. Choess (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Choess: thanks; could you move Osmundastrum cinnamomeum to Osmundastrum then? It needs an admin. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Plants Redesign

Hey everyone, I did some theming on the project pages. Hope you like it! --MCEllis (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The design is very flexible, things can be changed if needed.--MCEllis (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I like the new look. I'd like to see all the detailed advice move into a subpage (i.e. sections 12 (Redirects) to 18 (Categorization)). Some it came out of WP:FLORA and could perhaps go back there, some of it could perhaps be handled in the article template. And some of it might need a new subpage, perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Advice? Cf. Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects for how some other Wikiprojects have titled subpages along these lines. Plantdrew (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with most of that except I'm not sure we should create yet another page that will most likely not be kept up to date. Right now I am confused by the number of pages we have, many of which haven't been touched in years. I think we should be able to fit everything within the 4 main tabbed pages I have added to the top of the project:

• Main Page
• Template for Plant Articles
• Template for Botanists
• Resources

I believe this Project somehow needs to start focusing more on getting more articles into Category:GA-Class plant articles, Category:FA-Class plant articles, and Category:FL-Class plant articles. Why is this not listed as one of our goals? Such a small sliver of plant articles are actually considered of good quality:

• 2.8% List-Class
• 64.5% Stub-Class
• 26.4% Start-Class
• 4.8% C-Class
• 1% B-Class
• 0.2% GA-Class
• 0.1% FA-Class
• 0.1% remaining

Speaking of WP:FLORA, as far as I know, we make no mention of the WP:FLORA article in our pages (except for a link in our navbox). Seems like we should mention it in passing with a "See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)." --MCEllis (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Tabbed access is an excellent idea.
• The top image wastes far too much space on small screens (e.g. mobile devices). This is a working project; I don't see that we need pretty pictures.
• Don't assume that because some of the project's pages "haven't been touched in years" they aren't valuable; they simply may not need updating.
• Providing only four tabs hides some very important pages; e.g. categorization, taxoboxes. There needs to be at least one more tab providing good links to major subpages. Now attempted via an index page.
• Given limited editors, there's a time and workload conflict between creating GA and FA articles and improving coverage of the world's plants with at least Start/C class articles. Personally, I'd prefer us to work on bringing stubs up to this level. But it's entirely up to individual editors as to how they spend their time; I don't think the project should take a view.

Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@MCEllis: your last redesign to the project page messed up the section/subsection headings quite badly. I tried to sort it out, but got lost/confused – sorry! So I reverted to the last good layout. I'm sure you can fix it properly later.

I've now started an "Index" page and added it to the tabs. As MCEllis rightly says the number of pages attached to this project is confusing; perhaps an index will help. Anyway, it's an experiment; see what you think. Doubtless there are plenty of other entries that can be added. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Whoops, I tried to add the Assessment Log viewer to the page but the TOC for the archive was added with it. I did make the header slightly shorter. I may have to take off the green box-headers on each section of the main page if people are actually using mobile devices to view this project. The theme on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds was my original starting point, but as you say, functionality may be more important than aesthetics.

However, I'm not sure we need an index tab, and sorting alphabetically rather than by topic seems even more challenging to find help if I don't know what I'm looking for. I think it's better to focus making navigation easier through the navigation tabs, the sidebar, and linking to each page within the content of pages. I completely redesigned the sidebar, using {{taxobox}} as my inspiration. --MCEllis (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty and the most important thing for me in a WikiProject (the assessment table) is easy to find. So thumbs up. Guettarda (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@MCEllis: in order to make the section headings look right with the styles you've given them, it's necessary to set all the section headings one level too low, i.e. start with "===...===" instead of the correct "==...==". This needs to be fixed (or else the special styles removed) and the correct levels restored.

Of course the project pages, like all Wikipedia pages, must look ok on mobile devices; statistics show that they are now the main devices used to access the internet.

As for the value of an index page, I leave that for others to judge. My approach is as an experienced member of the project: I know what I'm looking for, but often can't easily find it. So I will definitely find an index helpful, but if others don't, it doesn't need to be one of the tabs. More than five tabs doesn't work well on a smart phone anyway, so removing one would have some advantages. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Yes, all the sections on the main page are all set to one level too low, it was the only way to have themed section headers. As you say, they start with "===...===" instead of the correct "==...==". I don't see much issue with the sections as they are other than on mobile. Though I did have the Statistics header wrong.

I'm not sure what else to say since I spent so many hours theming those sections, most of my work was trying to get it to work with h2 tags but it just isn't possible. Like I said, thats how Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds setup their headers. If it really bothers you there's not much I can do other than let you take down all my stylized sections. I would like to see other viewpoints though.--MCEllis (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@MCEllis: it doesn't bother me personally, but my understanding is that incorrect levels are a problem for screen readers, and so are against WP policy: see WP:BADHEAD. As formatted now, Level 2 is omitted between Level 1 and Level 3. Perhaps this policy doesn't apply to project pages, but if so, it seems discriminatory.

(By the way, MOS:SECTIONS says that section headings should not contain images.)

The other issue about this approach to styling section headings is that the section isn't self-contained: the end div tag is inside, the start div tag outside. So the source looks odd when you edit it; it's immediately tempting to remove the apparently "stray" tag. This is also against some section of the MoS, which says that sections should be self-contained – if only I could find it! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@MCEllis: I've now asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accessibility#Section_numbering whether the issue of not having the correct section heading levels matters. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to pictures but the first thing I noticed was that my guide to writing articles about botanists was missing, although I figured how to find it eventually and clarified the hat. Is there a way of making tabs drop down menus? More template pages may get added later. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: As requested I have removed all stylized headers and returned to normal section formatting. I will miss them but it's more important to me to gain your respect. Please let me know if there is anything more I can do.--MCEllis (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@MCEllis: I certainly respect your intentions. I like(d) the more distinct section headings; we need to see if we can get them back but using the correct section heading levels. The tabs are an excellent idea; I had actually thought of suggesting them here (I'm familiar with them at WP:SPIDERS), but hadn't got round to it. I do suggest that in future you consider using a sandbox first in the case of a major page design or writing or modifying a template. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Templates tab

I'm wondering if the "Templates" tab might more usefully be labelled just "Template" as it's about the article template (the actual link remains "WikiProject Plants/Template"). I've clicked on "Templates" a few times looking for GRIN, WCSP etc. forgetting that these are under "Resources"! Thanks Declangi (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Declangi: the underlying problem is the ambiguity of the word "template", meaning either a "wikitemplate" or a "suggested article outline". Changing to "Template" isn't quite right, as it links to a suggested article outline for a botanist article, as well as a plant article. I'm not sure of the best solution, but I've been caught by this ambiguity myself. It applies to other wikiprojects too. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It is called "layout" on the main MoS page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, and I think that's a better and more precise term overall. However, as I perused few other wikiprojects, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates, that page contains a mishmash of layout guidance and actual wikitemplates; however, I think the latter could be relegated to "resources" here. No such user (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"Layout" seems much narrower in scope to me: the "plant article template" and the "botanist article template" do suggest a section ordering, but go much further in describing what should be in each section. "Article template" is more accurate, but unfortunately longer so not so good on a tab. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"Templates" is super confusing for the tab now. I would expect templates (plural) to be wikitemplates, not a guide to article content. Category:WikiProject_content_advice has pages using "article guidelines", "content guide" "structure" (and there's "content advice" from the category itself). Plantdrew (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Cannabis subtaxa debate

I think the Cannabis plant articles could use some serious updating to clarify current taxonomic treatment, I think most would agree sativa, indica, and ruderalis are not individual species, but rather are intraspecific classifications of C. sativa. Especially if you look through taxonomic databases and recent works. If you are able to contribute your thoughts, please look at Talk:Cannabis#Monotypic_genus_or_several_species.3F. When I brought it up, one response proposed switching from species/subspecies classifications to cultonomic classification. I believe insight from experienced WikiProject Plants contributors would make a big difference in finding the right path forward to updating these articles. The corresponding French versions of these articles have attempted to clarify the genus as monotypic, but subtaxa article titles still do not match their taxobox classifications (which are now described as subspecies in their taxoboxes). See fr:Cannabis indica for example.--MCEllis (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Grex (horticulture) needs eyeballs

Hi folks. I came across Grex (horticulture) whilst doing some work on categories and can sense that things are getting a little testy there between two main editors, with responses to cn tags of "Oh that's common knowledge". It could do with more eyeballs, and ideally someone with access to appropriate refs - particularly since it's one of those general "concept" type articles.Le Deluge (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It's contentious (I've given up on it). As mentioned on the talk page, some material that has been deleted might be worth retrieving. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Greges are used for Rhododendrons as well. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. The ICNCP 8th edition, 2009, says that they can only be used for orchids, but there was a proposal to reinstate greges for other groups here. Does anyone know what became of the ninth edition that was expected to be published in 2014? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I see we need to distinguish between earlier uses of grex (the Lilium register abandoned grex for Group) and people continuing to use the concept with Rhododendrons despite the lack of legitimation from the ICNCP. The article presumably deserves some material on the historical use of the category. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If anyone thinks it merits a mention in the article, some Nepenthes growers have been using greges in that genus, as well, but obviously without approval from the ICNCP. Article here in the Carnivorous Plant Newsletter and their registry here. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a difficult situation because changes to the ICNCP are generally retroactive. It does seem to be premature to have expected the next edition to have been published, since the 2009 edition apparently derives from the 2006 meeting (the 2010 meeting didn't produce changes, apparently). However, I don't see any indication whether decisions were made at IHC2014, so perhaps no new code is expected. The latest issue of Hanburyana is apparently that 2013 volume 7 mentioned above. Should Wikipedia lay down the law that the eight edition of the code is binding? I'll try asking on a taxonomy mailing list that I subscribe to whether there is a horticultural taxonomist in the house. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Had a very helpful response from a specialist horticultural taxonomist. A ninth edition of the ICNCP is expected soon(ish) and (unlike what happens with the ICN) the eighth edition will be in force until that is published. I'll write something on the talk page at Grex (horticulture). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more topics see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata Property proposal about flower color

For info d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Natural_science#flower_colour--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Balady citron

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Balady citron regarding a possible page name change to "Palestinian citron". Comments most welcome! Chesdovi (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Anagallis vs. Lysimachia

The issue of whether we should accept the merging of Anagallis into Lysimachia has been raised before (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive65#Inconsistency). I don't have strong views either way, but at present we have a mess, with random assignments to one or the other genus (e.g. Anagallis arvensis but Lysimachia monelli). Either sinking or maintaining the separation would be better than what we have now. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this 2016 article that discusses and favours sinking Anagallis into Lysimachia, on top of the major 2001 and 2005 papers on the subject, could be a hint that it is time to merge the genera. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Polygonum caespitosum/Persicaria longiseta

Seeking opinions. In July 2015, we had an article on Polygonum caespitosum and an article on Persicaria longiseta. Po. caespitosum was then merged into Pe. longiseta in September 2015. Today, the redirection was completely reversed; now we have an article on Po. caespitosum with Pe. longiseta redirecting there. The Plant List is completely useless here (all sourced to Tropicos). |Flora of North America says "Persicaria longiseta is morphologically similar to another Asian species, P. posumbu (Buchanan-Hamilton ex D. Don) H. Gross (= P. caespitosa)."

Applying FNA's treatment to what I see on the internet, there's an Asian plant introduced to North America that goes variously by (in North American sources) Polygonum/Persicaria caespitos*/longiset*/caespitos* var. longiset*. If P. longiseta is recognized as a species, then P. caespitosum does not occur in North America (and per FNA, the species restricted to Asia is P. posumbu, not P. caespitosum). In that case, we'd need a fresh article for P. posumbu, with P. caespitosum redirecting to it, probably with a hatnote for North American usage. North American references to P. caespitosum as an invasive can't be used.

Any objection to following FNA's treatment to sort this out? Anything else I'm missing? Plantdrew (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I was the editor who reversed the redirection. That was clearly a mistake, based on some strange kind of misreading of sources: I must have been tired or something. However, although a mistake, it was not completely indefensible, as Persicaria longiseta has been regarded by some authorities as a variety of Polygonum caespitosum, whereas there is no case at all for the original redirection. I have now restored both the articles to the state they were in before the original merge and redirect, as it is clear that the generally accepted treatment is that they are distinct species.

My searches indicate that the posumbo plant is variously regarded as a separate species, under either of the names Polygonum posumbu or Persicaria posumbu, as a synonym of Polygonum caespitosum, or as a subspecies, under the name Polygonum caespitosum subsp. yokusaianum (Makino) Danser. (See, for example, http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=242339686.) I have not researched far enough to determine whether any one of these views has sufficient predominence to be regarded as "the" accepted treatment, so I have no view on whether the article Polygonum caespitosum should be renamed to one or other of the posumbu names, as Plantdrew suggests. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

One small thing: the spelling is actually Polygonum cespitosum, as can be seen here and in Article 60 of the code of nomenclature, end of Ex 1. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

APG IV is out!

Freely accessible in the Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. Tylototriton (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Aww that's nice, proteaceae gets new friends :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I assume that Sabiaceae is wrong when it says that it is the only family in Proteales Lavateraguy (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Peridictyon puzzle

Peridictyon sanctum and Peridictyon redirect to Elymus. P. sanctum is the type (see Tropicos) of Peridictyon. WCSP has Peridictyon as a synonym of Elymus (see WCSP Elymus). WCSP recognizes Peridictyon sanctum as Festucopsis sancta (see here). WCSP's internal inconsistency seems to depend on an unpublished combination Elymus sanctum (here). Is Peridictyon a synonym of Festucopsis? Plantdrew (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirecting to Elymus is quite dismissive and lumpish, refusing to accept some apparently detailed taxonomic work, and relying on a non-existent name as well. The paper that splits Peridictyon out from Festucopsis is available here, with masses of detailed argument. Curiously, ING doesn't list the genus, so I've sent a message to ask why. IPNI has no complaints. WCSP is certainly confused about something. Tropicos has what I think is an acceptance of the published papers, and I'd be inclined to follow it as the least confused opinion on synonymy that is available. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think recognizing Peridictyon is the right approach, but then we will be misrepresenting the source at Festucopsis and Elymus. Plantdrew (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

At Elymus (genus), replacing the WCSP synonym list with one from Tropicos would also remove Lophopyrum Á.Löve Pascopyrum Á.Löve Psammopyrum Á.Löve Pseudoroegneria (Nevski) Á.Löve × Pseudelymus Barkworth & D.R.Dewey and add Anthosachne Steud. Asprella Willd. Chretomeris Nutt. ex J.G. Sm. Cryptopyrum Heynh. Elymus sect. Clinelymus Griseb. Elysitanion Bowden Stenostachys Turcz. I think those can be dealt with individually; some have pages already, and some are invalid or illegitimate. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There's more to come in this puzzle after ING is next updated in a few weeks' time. A very helpful response to my query arrived, that Festuca sancta is not validly published because the description is inadequate; it lists no characteristics that distinguish the species from other festucas. Therefore, F. sancta cannot serve as the type for Peridictyon, so that genus is nom. inval.. I think it might be a good strategy for wikipedia to still include the page for the monotypic genus, which seems to be based on good taxonomy, but give an explanation of the nomenclature problem, sourced to ING. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

What a mess. Thanks for your work on this. Plantdrew (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

ING has been updated, so there is now an explanation at Peridictyon. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Renaming Montane ecology

There's a discussion at Talk:Mountain ecology#Renaming article about renaming the article. Feel free to join the discussion. —hike395 (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Ficus retusa and Ficus microcarpa

From what I'm finding, Ficus microcarpa is an Old World species that is horticulturally significant (and invasive in some regions). Ficus retusa is a fairly obscure New World species, but the term Ficus retusa most commonly shows up on the internet misapplied to Ficus microcarpa. I'm not sure that anything in our Ficus retusa article really is about the New World plant. I'm inclined to cut the F. retusa article down to a one sentence stub with a hatnote pointing to F. microcarpa, but I'm lazy. Does anybody want to write an article for F. retusa, and/or correct my understanding of the situation? Plantdrew (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

That looks like a confusing mess. Guettarda (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be a classic problem of a name applied widely and consistently in horticulture being botanically wrong. I think it's right to cut down Ficus retusa for now, making clear that "Ficus retusa hort." is actually Ficus microcarpa. At the very least the exclusively zoological term "junior synonym" has to go from the opening. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

(emoticon for horrified shudder, but there doesn't seem to be one) A search of USDA GRIN for "Ficus retusa" returns a clear indication that the name is misapplied. However, it says that the true F. retusa is not a New World plant but Malesian. @Plantdrew: what is your source for the New World origin? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Second the shudder. And thanks for following up - I got to the 'Malesian species' bit, figured I was on the wrong track, and added my less than helpful comment above. :) Guettarda (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sminthopsis84: Sorry about that. My source is being tired and misreading Tropicos (it does seem that misapplication isn't exclusive to horticulture though; Tropicos has records from various New World checklists that are apparently misapplying F. retusa to F. microcarpa). Malesian distribution for F. retusa appears correct. Plantdrew (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Taking one from that confusingly exclusively New World list in Tropicos, the original is here, with a statement that it is an Asian species. That's enough to convince me that all the American entries are probably checklists with introduced species. Another odd usage is under the Accepted Names tab, where Flora of Pakistan lists it as a synonym of F. microcarpa; I've previously noticed that Flora of Pakistan has a few parts that are discordant with other taxonomic opinions, even plainly ignoring the rule of priority in some cases, so, sadly, I'd discount that too. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

New WikiProject template photo?

Hey, I think it's about time the WikiProject got a new photo, as well as the current one not looking that good when it's so small.

I've found a few pictures that may work

• 
  File:Flower, Common Perenial Gaillardia "Arizona Sun" - Flickr - nekonomania.jpg
• 
  File:Ipomoea pes-caprae - flower view 01.jpg
• 
  File:Acacia at sunset in the Kokiselei river Turkana northern Kenya.jpg
• 
  File:Dahlia, Dalia, Acocoxochitl (4).JPG
• 
  File:Heterotheca villosa (5018528860).jpg

Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

This is about the project banner photo in case that's not clear. Further discussion at Template talk:WikiProject Plants. Plantdrew (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Admin needed for move

Rhamnus frangula is now considered a synonym for Frangula alnus, according to TPL, GRIN, USDA, Stace's New Flora of the British Isles, etc. Could an admin please move Rhamnus frangula to Frangula alnus? Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Related discussion (Category:Species threatened by climate change)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force#New category Category:Species threatened by climate change. jonkerz ♠talk 15:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Ficus rubiginosa

In case any plant folks want to comment, Ficus rubiginosa is at FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ficus rubiginosa/archive1. Both expert and lay-input appreciated....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Myrtle

Could someone knowledgeable about wikidata please look at Talk:Myrtle#Language links? The request is to delete a wikidata entry, but I seems to be invisible. The Swedish wiki doesn't have a disambiguation page to link to. The link follows the path of an existing redirect in SV, but that redirect doesn't seem to be connected in wikidata. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The link in the sidebar was invoked directly by [[sv:Spöken i Harry Potter#Missnöjda Myrtle]] in the article itself, not by wikidata, I removed it. cygnis insignis 15:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! (blushing, didn't see that) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Hello WikiProject Plants,
You are invited to join the Essential Oils WikiProject, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to the study and improvement of Essential Oil and related articles.
To join the project, just add your name to the participants list. We're so glad you're here!
                      – Ilikeguys21 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. Plantdrew (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Richard Brinsley Hinds

New article. If you know anything more about this botanist, especially as a binomial authority, please improve it. Narky Blert (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not finding any record of plant species he's described (though he does have a standard author abbreviation). He did describe a number of other mollusc species, not sure how many of these are on Wikipedia though. Plantdrew (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Abbreviating binomens

Would people be interested in discussing and perhaps laying out a best-practice guideline for using abbreviations of species names, such as M. citrolens for Melaleuca citrolens? Some recent discussion on my talk page indicates that there is some uncertainty that could result in unnecessary edits back and forth. One option is to abbreviate as much as possible (even using piping), particularly in lists. Another option is to avoid abbreviating at the start of a paragraph, or to avoid abbreviating at the start of any sentence as some style guides such as this one advise. Another option would be to never abbreviate species names. Although abbreviations are mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora), this particular matter isn't deal with, as far as I can see. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure there's a general rule. The key seems to be to clarity for the reader while avoiding unnecessary redundancy. Clearly you don't abbreviate if it would be ambiguous, as when more than one genus in an article would have the same abbreviation. I feel that I wouldn't abbreviate the first mention in a section, or if the full name hadn't been mentioned for several paragraphs, but that I would abbreviate in an inline list of species of the same genera. However, I suspect I'm inconsistent. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Unfortunately there does not seem to be any consistency between published monographs and journal articles. Journal of the Adelaide Botanic Garden appears to allow abbreviation at the start of paragraphs and sentences (eg. "M. gibbosa is similar to M. decussata in the broad base..... ") as does Elizabeth (Berndt) George in "Verticordia - The turner of hearts" (eg. "V. acerosa was introduced to horticulture...."). However, I can't find any abbreviations at the start of sentences in Nuytsia articles or in Chinnock's monograph "Eremophila and Allied Genera". It would be good to have consistency on this point in Wikipedia plant articles.Gderrin (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

References

There's a lot of editorial advice out there recommending avoiding starting sentences/paragraphs with an abbreviation. Starting a paragraph with an abbreviation looks really ugly to me, but I'm not as bothered by abbreviations starting subsequent sentences in a paragraph. I also don't like abbreviations at the start of a line, as in a bulleted list or a table. I especially don't like it when the bullet or table entry is intended to be linked (e.g. a list of species in a genus); piping the abbreviation to the full binomial is a hassle for editors and abbreviating doesn't seem to help readers.

I can see that excessive repetition of the full binomial in a single paragraph could be annoying. But there are other ways around that besides abbreviation; one could rephrase with "it", "the plant" or a perhaps common name. The one case I see where abbreviation is helpful would be in a section focused on the relationships between one species and "similar" species in the same genus ("similar" by phylogenetic relationship and/or morphology). Plantdrew (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for the replies. Perhaps we should leave the matter for now, and those of us who feel that abbreviation can be excessive can cite external style guidelines, while those who feel that extended genus names are tiresome can find ways to rephrase. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Eutrochium purpureum images

It's come to my attention that we (Commons/Wikipedia) might not have any photos of Eutrochium purpureum ; there is apparently pervasive misidentification. Please comment at Talk:Eutrochium_purpureum#Images if you can help. Plantdrew (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Taxobox discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Redundancies in the taxoboxes for a discussion about the format of taxoboxes for species and below. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Help with identifying a plant

Can a fellow editor help me identify this plant here? More specifically, I am interested in those little guys. Are those sporophytes? Do you have any idea what the moss itself might be called? The location is Continental Europe. Thanks! Sb2s3 (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Definitely sporophytes. There isn't much detail visible, and quite a lot of moss species look like that. Mniaceae or Bryaceae are possibilities. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Sb2s3 (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Rattan

It looks that it does not synonymize with Calameae (). I propose to use the latin title on the Calameae article and to add Rattan as a separate article. --RoRo (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. It seems to me that rattan is a plant fiber product, not a common name for the plant species that produce the product (regardless of whether those species correspond to a taxon/clade). Plantdrew (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Done, separated Calameae and Rattan, and fixed some wikidata links. I added some information on the Rattan page, mostly about taxonomy where there are some tables that use as a reference mainly the first edition of Genera Palmarum and related articles from the same author. There could be big mistakes in redaction or something wrong, I don't know how to ask it but please if you'd like to check. --RoRo (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Enthusiastic new user

The new User:Dipentodon may merit watching and guidance. Lots of enthusiasm, but not much knowledge about Wikipedia or concerning the fact that experts in taxonomy often disagree with each other. He's been "updating" species counts for numerous taxa, all from a single source that summarizes the entirety of plant classification, often without regard to current taxonomies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Taxobox "type" parameters not appropriate for botany

Can anyone suggest a strategy for adjusting the taxobox template so that type information can be included in a way that is in keeping with the botanical code of nomenclature (which generally means avoiding the phrase "type species")? I've been avoiding adding anything. An example where the zoological parameters are used for botany is Alloxylon. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no short way to describe the "type species" in the ICN. If you base it on Art. 10.1, then the "type species" of a genus is the "species whose type is the type of the genus". I think this is a case where borrowing the zoological term is the best solution; the link explains the code difference, although it could usefully be expanded somewhat. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't know what to do about the instructions with the template "type_species = the original name of the species that was initially used to describe the genus, without regard to its present-day nomenclature". What I was looking at was Deinostigma, which was originally described with a single species, D. poilanei, which had sat as Primulina poilanei for a while, but before that was Chirita poilanei. That particular problem might be solvable by saying that the type species of Deinostigma is Chirita poilanei, but that is horrible botany, and potentially the instructions could be misunderstood to include a case where the type had been misidentified as something unrelated (a moss, say, thought to have been a small Ericaceae). In botany, a type comes with a collector name and collector's number, and we don't have a space for that in the taxobox. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the instructions need clarifying for the differences between the codes. The ICZN explicitly requires the original name to be used, but I can find no such requirement for the ICN.

However, I don't think the ICN is very clear on the language to be used in describing the typification of ranks above species. There seems to be a "dual view". Art. 10.1 says "The type of a name of a genus or of any subdivision of a genus is the type of a name of a species ... For purposes of designation or citation of a type, the species name alone suffices, i.e. it is considered as the full equivalent of its type." Thus it's acceptable to say either that the type of a genus is the type of a designated species or that it is the species itself. This "dual view" is present in, e.g., Art. 7.10, Examples 12 and 13. "The first to designate a type [for Clorosarcina] was Starr ... who selected Chlorosarcina elegans" – this implies that the species is the type. "The phrase 'standard species' as used by Hitchcock & Green ... is now treated as equivalent to 'type', and hence type designations in that work are acceptable" – even more clearly this says that for a genus the type is the "standard species".

So I think that it's ok to use the term "type species", but that the current name in the genus should be used for ICN names. But I'm not a professional taxonomist, so stand to be corrected. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes of course you are correct. By referring to the species, the meaning is the type of that species, which has not necessarily been designated as an actual specimen (if it's waiting for a lectotype). Index Nominum Genericorum for Deinostigma lists "T.: D. poilanei (Pellegrin) W. T. Wang et Z. Y. Li (Hemiboea poilanei Pellegrin)". So how about a section in the Taxobox documentation that says to use the current name in the genus for botanical names, and perhaps suggesting ING as a source for that kind of information? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I updated Template:Taxobox/doc#Type species as per our discussion. Are there any other "taxobox" pages that need changing? I think the article Type species should also be altered a bit – I'll leave that to you. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Peter. I've tweaked Type species, hopefully for the better. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Unidentified peppermint

It smells like peppermint, but doesn't have jagged leaf edges (grown in southern China). Does anyone know what this is? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

It looks like a kind of basil (but I don't know it). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm growing basil. Not basil. Not basily. Minty. Sweet and pepperminty. Seen at waist height like a baby tree. Pointy, flowery tips went to seed when it was that high. They use the leaves with shelfish. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it the Taiwanese basil? (九層塔, Jiu-ceng-ta). It is used for Basil fried clams(九層塔炒蛤).―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Phoenix7777, you are a genius! That looks like it! The flowers, the thingy on top, the leaves, yes! Sure doesn't taste like basil, though. So minty. Thank you, thank you, three bags full! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

And thank you too, Sminthopsis84! You got the basil part right. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Unidentified flowers. Need identification to properly rename

I took pictures of some flowers, but I don't know the common or scientific name of them. Two of them are the same flower but in different colors.

• 
  File:Red Hibiscus in Cairo, Egypt.jpg
• 
  File:Pink Hibiscus in Cairo, Egypt 01.jpg
• 
  File:Pink Hibiscus in Cairo, Egypt 02.jpg
• 
  File:White Osteospermum.jpg

Please help me identify them so that I can move them to their proper names in Commons. ¬Hexafluoride ^(talk) 23:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The first is Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, the second is a Hibiscus and might be Hibiscus rosa-sinensis again, and I think that the last is Osteospermum. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll rename them and categorize. ¬Hexafluoride ^(talk) 14:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Similarly. I realize the fungi aren't exactly "plants", but I'm guessing someone here knows something about those, too.

• 
  User:Sminthopsis84 says Crataegus monogyna - Jmabel
• 
  User:Sminthopsis84 says Unidentified Rubus - Jmabel
• 
  User:Sminthopsis84 says Unidentified Lupinus - Jmabel
• 
• 
  User:Sminthopsis84 says Achillea millefolium - Jmabel
• 
  User:Sminthopsis84 says Unidentified Rubus - Jmabel
• 
  User:Sminthopsis84 says Unidentified Rubus - Jmabel
• 
• 
• 
  User:Sasata says Coprinopsis atramentaria
• 

- Jmabel | Talk 03:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The two Rubus photos with berries are possibly Rubus spectabilis (the Rubus in flower is certainly another species though). Plantdrew (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. That was my thought as well, though I'd never heard Rubus spectabilis, just know them as "salmonberry". - Jmabel | Talk 23:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

new plant discovered in South India- Ceropegia Nambiyana

Please see English version of a Malayalam article in Mathrubhumi daily of Kerala, a south Indian state. The full article can be seen on this open access site http://www.journalijar.com/uploads/669_IJAR-10325.pdf Wonder if the authors could establish the distinction between the closest relative sufficiently. The journal is a paid publisher it seems. --117.253.199.233 (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC).

The name that appears in the article itself is C. nampyana. It is indeed a pity that the authors submitted their paper to a questionable journal, and if the acknowledgements section is accurate, they did not receive any helpful comments from reviewers. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

APG IV

There's a short summary of the changes in APG IV at Angiosperm Phylogeny Group#APG IV (2016), but there wasn't an article. I've put a stub at APG IV system – anyone have time to work on it?

There are also changes to taxoboxes and associated taxonomy required; some have been made but more eyes are needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)O

Obviously an immense task, but it will be helped if each one adresses the relevant pages within their area of expertise, and if visiting a page, checks its APG IV compliance. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Admin needed for move

Xanthorrhoeaceae is now Asphodelaceae (hooray!); could an admin please make the move? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Placed on WP:RMT --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done now. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Expand from the corresponding article in Spanish" templates on monocotyledons pages

There is this template on the articles from Monocotyledon to monocot families and subfamilies. Since those articles are mere translations from the books on the bibliography section (Judd et al. 2007, Simpson 2005, Soltis et al. 2005, APweb), as clearly stated, it shouldn't be a point in having those templates there, it's easier for an English heritage person to copypaste the primary sources, they all are in English. Those articles were made with the sole objective of promoting the teaching of the actual mainstream classification. --RoRo (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In which case the Spanish articles are probably copyright violations, since direct translations are just as much a copyright violation as cut-and-paste. When some Spanish articles were used here, the translation back to English was so close to the original (particularly APweb) that it was not acceptable. Amaryllidoideae, for example, had to be removed altogether (see here). So I think these templates should be removed. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess this is not the place to discuss about primary literature copyvios. --RoRo (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss, no, but warn WP:PLANTS editors, yes. I've spent quite a bit of time in the past improving translations from the Spanish Wikipedia only to have the whole page or section deleted, as per the example above. Having to start again with a completely blank article is very annoying! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thismiaceae

Since we normally follow APG, and APG II, APG III and APG IV all merge Thismiaceae into Burmanniaceae, should this article have a taxobox? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"Taxa named by ..." categories

If anyone considers categories to be important, this could be distressing; a huge clean-up effort would be required. It seems that a set of categories is being set up such as Category:Taxa named by George Bentham, with many spurious entries. Please see discussion from two participants, but no response so far from the editor (who has made more such edits since the first talk-page comments), at User_talk:Look2See1#Botanical authorities do not follow the pattern used in zoology. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

RSN question about plant species sourcing

Hi WPPlants,

There's a question at the RSN asking whether a particular source is sufficient to verify a newly documented species. A more knowledgeable opinion would be welcome here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#International Journal of Advanced Research. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

See also the section above #new palnt discovered in South India- Ceropegia Nambiyana. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Lutz spruce -- this year's Capitol Christmas Tree!

I wrote an article about this year's Capitol Christmas Tree, not the one tree, but its species. It is a Sitka/White spruce hybrid. Can interested botanical article writers please check and edit? I am not a good writer in English, so grammar, punctuation, in addition to facts are useful.

[2]

Thanks for writing the article. Plantdrew (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Featured Article - February 22: Banksia aemula

There is some cleaning up needed on Banksia aemula before it gets featured on the main page. Is the Wikisource spam at the bottom necessary? It's already got the link to Wikisource in the sister project box. Also not sure there needs to be a link to Wikidata in there because the Wikidata link can be found in the sidebar. I haven't read the article yet but maybe some of the pictures could be moved around.

I don't see a much point to the sister project box. Plantdrew (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Page move for Variety (botany)

Prisencolin moved Variety (botany) to Botanical variety, citing WP:NATURAL. In my view, there's nothing "natural" about "Botanical variety" as a name for the taxonomic rank, and I would like it moved back. Comments, please. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree, the page should be moved back. "Botanical variety" is not a technical term, but "variety" is, and one of its meanings is specific to botany. I would prefer to see the page called Botanical variety become a redirect to Plant variety. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved it back and opened a discussion at Talk:Variety (botany)#Move. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Agapanthus albus

Anybody have any idea what to make of Agapanthus albus? 'Albus' is apparently a cultivar, with many websites presenting it as Agapanthus africanus 'Albus'. But RHS says it's misapplied without saying anything about what the correct application is. There's also quite a few search results for Agapanthus umbellatus 'Albus'. The Plant List treats A. umbellatus as a synonym of A. africanus, so perhaps the RHS's "misapplied" has something to do with the synonymy issue? Should the article being moved to Agapanthus 'Albus' or some other title? Plantdrew (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

How about merging Agapanthus albus into Agapanthus africanus? Both articles are quite short, and 'Albus' is already mentioned in A. africanus (they aren't even cross-linked at the moment). Agapanthus umbellatus redirects to A. africanus, and any doubt about their synonymity should be discussed there. Further, the A. albus article is barely readable, and it does not discuss specifics of 'Albus' at all. It was created by Mariavallebrizuela (talk · contribs), checkuser-blocked for sockpuppetry. No such user (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

(The RHS listing is cute: wonder if it would cost less than ₤9.99 if the name were correctly applied.) Agapanthus names are mostly misapplied in gardens. Agapanthus praecox also has white forms, and perhaps any species that is cultivated will have them. (There is also at least Agapanthus campanulatus var. albidus.) How about making the page into a disambig? Perhaps it could include a line "Agapanthus umbellatus 'Albus' a synonym of Agapanthus africanus 'Albus'". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

How about WP:PRODding Agapanthus albus? It's a mishmash of language ("umbella that are in scapo", "unique genre L´Her of the sufamily") and concepts – it mixes information about the whole genus Agapanthus, a couple of species, and several cultivars, in an incomprehensible manner. If I hadn't read our other articles about the genus, I wouldn't know what's it all about. And "Agapanthus albus" is not a plausible search term. No such user (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Plantdrew: If the information in c:category:Agapanthus africanus and Agapanthus africanus that most plants sold as A. africanus are A. praecox is correct, then the RHS presumably meant that there is no such thing as A. africanus 'Albus', but instead it is A. praecox 'Albus'. The catch is that the whole genus is pretty varied and, from my quick reading, it is next to impossible (for a layman, particularly) to distinguish A. africanus from A. praecox on appearance alone, and the googleable literature is sparse on the differences. Contents of our c:category:Agapanthus africanus are presumably misplaced as well. No such user (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It is tempting to empty c:category:Agapanthus africanus on the basis of the statement in PlantzAfrica that "Any Agapanthus referred to as 'africanus' in the nursery trade is almost certainly Agapanthus praecox.", but I think it may be a little out of date -- close to absolutely true, but perhaps not quite. In Australia, it seems to be a current gardening sport to plant unusual agapanthus (in institutional plantings, perhaps because it is now well known that A. praecox is an invasive weed). Some of them are quite different looking, and I would hesitate to assign a species name without close inspection. PlantzAfrica does offer descriptions, though, if anyone wants to see how many photos they can move on the basis of observable features. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice! I tried it out with Long Point Biosphere Reserve and without the visual editor (which gives me the heebie-jeebies). A couple of comments: the Open-source_attribution template caused some headaches, and I had to read the template documentation rather than the instructions for the tool, but it finally did what was intended. The Unesco site has typos, e.g., in the coordinates: E instead of W gives Kyrgyzstan rather than Canada (unfortunately, feedback doesn't seem to be encouraged, since the contact is a general one for Unesco). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Sminthopsis84:, I'm working on a better template at the moment so hope to have a more streamlined process this week. Can you tell me what is missing from the instructions you had to look at template documentation for? --John Cummings (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

About the template, a fully coded example would be nice, because the problem I was having was that I code template calls long-hand, typing { { etc. There is no source= parameter for that template, so "In the Source(s) field add the following" was a puzzle. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Project page

The project page gives tribe Amygdaleae as an example of a homotypic synonym (at a different rank) of subfamily Amygdaloideae. Now that a wider circumscription of the subfamily (including Maloideae and most of traditional Spiraeaoideae) is gaining acceptance should that example be removed/replaced?

Yeah. For a simple and easy substitution (now that the nomenclature code article 19 is available and a super-conservation proposal has been rejected) I'd suggest Maleae and Maloideae. A quibble would be that nobody uses Maloideae now, and it might be preferable to find an example where the subordinate rank is the one not currently often used. Malinae and Maleae could almost work, but there are basal genera, and so some people might be using Malinae to exclude those. Probably any example, even Ginkgo as one species or alternatively including several extinct species, will be confusing to somebody, because of the fluidity of classification. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Rye, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Plant biologists vs. Botanists

Hello WikiProject Plants, I wanted your opinions on if Category:Plant biologists should be its own category or if the scientists in it should be listed at Category:Botanists or an appropriate subcategory. From my (limited) understanding "plant biology" is a synonym for "botany", but the creator of the category noted in their edit summary that they believe it isn't. Hoping to get some insight and opinions on this. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Some people might consider there to be a subtle difference between the two terms, but there's absolutely no point in having two categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That is certainly true, but there are people who work on matters such as plant physiology or plant ecology who refuse to acknowledge themselves as botanists, so I would anticipate that merging the categories could be contentious. I don't think that making one a subset of the other is likely to be well received either. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, in my view, but realistically, "botany" and "botanist" are becoming unfashionable terms. There are no university degrees now with "botany" in the title in the UK, for example. "Plant sciences" and "plant scientist" are what I hear. Personally I would merge the two categories under either "plant biologist" or "plant scientist". If there were two categories, what would be the criteria for putting people in one or the other? Or would some people be in both? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Not so many botany departments left in the States, but the title on the degree doesn't have to match the name of the department, and I think this goes for the UK as well (I hear there are a couple ethnobotany degrees available there at least). I was happy getting a botany degree from and Ecology and Evolutionary Biology department (happier than I would've been in a hypothetical Botany department with a bunch of people who couldn't confidently recognize their model organisms in the field). Botany is field/museum based organismal biology with plants these days. Plant science is lab/greenhouse based molecular/physiological biology with plants (and jumping up a couple levels to ecology??? I wasn't aware that any plant ecologists objected to being labelled botanists, and they do need to do fieldwork). But organismal biologists doing Evolutionary Biology may be working mostly in a DNA lab with specimens pulled from herbaria. I think there's a possible distinction between plant biologists and botanists, that largely comes down to lab versus field+herbarium, but it's fuzzy at the edges.

It doesn't seem right to me to call anybody in the 19th century studying plants a "plant biologist" rather than a "botanist" (that includes people who were doing lab-based physiological research). On the other hand, I'm not sure "botanist" is appropriate for somebody in 2016 that works exclusively with Arabidopsis thaliana. Overall, I don't think two categories are justified. If we rely on the phrases used in sources for categorization, 19th century plant physiologists are likely to end up as "botanists", with 21st century plant physiologists as "plant biologists" (or "plant scientists"?), and it'll end up being WP:OR to unify the categories.Plantdrew (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: yes, it would definitely require original research to decide which category to use, and we seem to agree that one category is best. So are you saying that it should be called "botanists"? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps "plant systematist" could be the traditional category, it seems to be a fashionable term. A person I know who objects to being called a botanist is someone who does a lot of field work with plants and pollinators, and would to my mind be an ecological botanist, but apparently prefers to be called a plant biologist. Perhaps Wilhelm Hofmeister could then be a "plant biologist". I think that "plant scientist" seems to be used for people who study crops, rather than those who study wild plants. I don't know what someone who studies agricultural weeds would call themselves, perhaps an "agriculturist". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Could the category be "botanists and plant biologists"? (or even botanists, phytologists, plant biologists and plant scientists :-) ).

Someone who studies agricultural weeds might be an agronomist - agriculturalist vs. agronomist might be more or less analogous to engineer vs. scientist - and agronomy is a subfield of botany. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I'm really not sure what it should be called. Having two categories seems like hair-splitting, but may be the only way to avoid OR. "Botanists and plant biologists" might work. I think we have far more articles on botanists than we do on plant scientists, so if "botanist" was the only category fewer people would be mislabelled. Regarding Sminthopsis's ""plant scientist" seems to be used for people who study crops", that surely has to do with there generally being more funding for lab research for crop plants than for wild plants. Arabidopsis isn't a crop, but I'm having no trouble finding arabidopsologists who are being called plant scientists. Plantdrew (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This talk page showing up in google searches

Do we want to have this discussion indexed so that it shows up in google searches, as it does now? I was just advised at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) that this can probably be turned off if we wish, see Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. For example, a search for Ceropegia nampyana (without quotes) just now turned up a link to this page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems sensible to turn off indexing to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Me too, why was it on in the first place. Ltblood (talk | contribs) 02:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Diaereses in article titles

The issue arises from the question of whether to move Chlorotetraëdron to Chlorotetraedron. Article 60.6 of the ICN says:

"60.6. Diacritical signs are not used in scientific names. When names (either new or old) are drawn from words in which such signs appear, the signs are to be suppressed with the necessary transcription of the letters so modified; ... The diaeresis, indicating that a vowel is to be pronounced separately from the preceding vowel (as in Cephaëlis, Isoëtes), is a phonetic device that is not considered to alter the spelling; as such, its use is optional."

So Chlorotetraëdron is an allowed orthographic variant of Chlorotetraedron. My view is that we should mention the variant with the diaeresis in the text, but the article should always be at the variant without it. So I would make the move. Comments please. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

In so far that the ICN prescribes standard scientific identifiers and is the recognized authority on naming in botany/plant science, we should follow their practice in using these normalized names. Hence, I would support the move. But I think it would be good to retain the redirects as searchable alternative names and, as you say, note the alternatives in the article. --Mark viking (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I left a note pointing to this discussion at WikiProject Algae. I am pretty sure Chlorotetraëdron is currently the only case where Wikipedia is using a diaresis in the title of a alga/fungus/plant article (Isoetes had a diaresis until October 2013). Certainly there's no harm in keeping a redirect with the diaresis if the article is moved, but we don't have very many redirects like this (they were never consistently created for Isoetes species, for example). Plantdrew (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. I wasn't suggesting creating a slew of new redirects, just retaining continuity for the move or moves that take place. --Mark viking (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done ok, I've made the move as no-one objected. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Linnaea amabilis

Hello, Could someone verify if this name is properly accepted because when you check into The Plant List. This new name seems not listed. Thanks.--Pixeltoo (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, the transfer from Kolkwitzia to Linnaea was made in 2013 by a respected botanist, so will probably be accepted in due course. The Plant List relies on Tropicos for Kolkwitzia amabilis, but neither is up-to-date. So I think the name is probably ok, but it would be good to have a secondary source. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Fresno pepper

I ran into a set of apparently copied paragraphs from university extension offices that mention ornamental chilies they call Celestial, one of which lists Fresno peppers as being a variety (see the talk page). Based on other information regarding Fresno peppers they are bred from New Mexican peppers, which shows up in genetic analysis. I am not sure what to make of this Celestial pepper information, hence the request for comments. Falconjh (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Is Kew down?

Does anyone know what is going on with the Kew web sites? From where I am, in North America, The Plant List has been inaccessible for several days, although since yesterday the main page does display (but searches fail). IPNI seems to have been down since yesterday (or up and down for rather longer). I'm not even sure that it would be possible for me to report a problem by using any of their sites. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I have also failed to contact the site since middle of the week. Don't know what ails it at the moment. I have emailed the postmaster and will report back if there is any response Plantsurfer 17:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Some of the databases listed here are working, e.g. GrassBase, but I agree that others are not. I do know that cuts to Kew's funding have caused resource problems. I've noticed that if the databases go down at the weekend, they don't now come back until at least Monday. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

IPNI was down at the weekend, and is still not working. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Plant List appears to be running again. Plantsurfer 18:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Ditto IPNI. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Those I checked came back yesterday. Maybe the technical people were on their summer break! Peter coxhead (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

They are both accessible from here too now. Thanks all! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Malus pumila

What should be done with Malus pumila? It started as an article (for about 9 months), I converted it to a redirect to apple with the edit summary "it's not clear (controversial) that M. pumila is a separate entity from the domestic apple. What is clear is that most people using the name M. pumila intend to refer to the domestic apple.", which I stand by, although I don't remember the details of it's being accepted (though I see TPL has it accepted). It stayed as a redirect for 3+ years, but was just turned back into an article. The great majority of incoming links (aside from a navbox for Malus species) intend the domestic apple. At this point, I'm thinking Malus pumila should be a disambiguation page (with the current article perhaps at Malus pumila Mill.)?. What does everybody else think? Plantdrew (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It does appear that the commonest use of "Malus pumila" is as a name for the domestic apple, so I'd support Malus pumila returning to being a redirect to Apple, with the latter having a headnote with a link to Malus pumila Mill. A dab page doesn't seem to be favoured for only two possible articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

A good reference for this is the Flora of North America treatment. It states "Quian G. Z. et al. (2010) have proposed to conserve M. domestica and reject M. pumila. Their proposal is still under consideration by the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants." The manuscript was submitted quite a while before publication, which explains why the outcome of that proposal isn't mentioned. Proposals and Disposals points to the Group Committee refusing the proposal (-Taxon 63: 1359. 2014, which is 63(6)). The proposal was actually to conserve Malus domestica Borkh. against M. pumila Miller, M. communis Desf., M. frutescens Medik., and Pyrus dioica Moench (Rosaceae). In rejecting it, the committee made various points, summarizing as "When a substantial minority of the scientific community are using the correct name for a species, the Committee usually considers it better to encourage others to follow their lead, rather than suspending the rules to suppress it. Thus, a narrow majority recommend against conservation." Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew about the conservation proposal, but hadn't looked into it since 2013 (when I'd made M. pumila a redirect). Plantdrew (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomenclature of orchid hybrids

I think I've reached my limit with reworking Grex (horticulture) and would be glad if others could look it over. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Cyclachaena xanthiifolia or Iva xanthiifolia?

Anyone have any views on Cyclachaena xanthiifolia versus Iva xanthiifolia? We have it at the former; TPL has it at the latter, as do UK sources (it's a casual here distributed in commercial bird seed). Secondary sources seem divided – see here. (Compositae are outside my range of interest, so I'm strictly neutral.) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The Plant List gives the accepted name as Iva xanthiifolia Nutt., Cyclachaena xanthiifolia (Nutt.) Fresen. as a synonym. Plantsurfer 10:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Tropicos backing that up is convincing, I think. It shows that FNA has the synonymy in the other direction, but the dates being so close on the publications (and FNA having a long lead time) seems to suggest that FNA failed to pick up that analysis. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, if no-one else objects in the next day or so I'll move it to Iva xanthiifolia. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Peter coxhead (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Mythic plant

Following on from the topic above, is anyone knowledgeable enough to be able to resolve the contradiction between this article and sanjivini booti mentioned at Selaginella bryopteris? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like the article should be split, with new article treating sanjeevani as an mythic plant of uncertain botanical identity. The cited 2005 paper by Sah seems to be the earliest source on Google Scholar associating sanjeevani with S. bryopteris. In search of Sanjeevani at least considers other candidates. I found a 2011 paper that uses sanjeevani for Selaginella ciliaris, several references for Trichoderma species as sanjeevani, and a 1989 paper that uses "Mritha Sanjeevani" for Aristolochia indica. Sanjivani vati is an Ayurvedic preparation made from several (identified) plants. Perhaps "sanjivini booti" is an unambiguous common name for S. bryopteris, I'm not sure. Otherwise, it looks like sanjeevani is an ambiguous common name for several medicinal plants as well as a plant from the Ramayana that is not identified (and is likely unidentifiable or entirely mythical). I wouldn't be surprised if there is more speculation about the identity in non-English sources (or Indian journals not indexed by Google). I'll split out an article for the Ramayana plant and speculation about its identity. Plantdrew (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Category for articles on plants known from historical sources, but not able to definitively identified.

I came across Arianis just now, which reminded me of Silphium, and a couple other articles I've previously run across that I don't remember titles for. It might be useful to have a category for notable historical plants that can't be definitively associated with a species name known today, but I can't think of a good category title. In Category:Plants in the Bible, ezov and kikayon could fall into a category for unidentified plants (as might some other entries in List of plants in the Bible). Category:Mythic plants has Umdhlebi; I'm not sure it's "mythic"; it could be a real plant where outlandish claims of toxicity were accepted by somebody who managed to get an account published in Nature. Does have anybody have any suggestions for a title for a category covering these mysteries? Plantdrew (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I searched a bit across categories, but did not find any parallel. The best title depends on the exact classification criterion. I'm inclined to apply a broad one, including all plants vaguely described in lores and ancient sources, and put both Category:Mythic plants and Category:Plants in the Bible as subcategories, regardless of subsequent scientific attestation, and put Arianis and likes directly into parent category as well. As for the title... Category:Plants known from historical sources, or Category:Plants attested in historical sources, perhaps? No such user (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Plants attested in historical sources sounds good to me, thank you for the suggestion. I'll create it later today if I don't hear any other suggestions. Plantdrew (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

"Attest" is defined by one dictionary as "provide or serve as clear evidence of"; the one thing that sources like the classical myths or the Bible don't do is provide clear evidence. So I think this would not be a good title for the category. I'm not sure they are "known" from historical sources either. In many cases there's just a name which can't be clearly identified with any currently understood taxon. How about "Plants named in historical sources"? Or the shorter "Plants with historical names"? Peter coxhead (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that the intended scope of the category is unidentified (or uncertainly identified) plants named in historical sources (which includes many of the Greek originals which Linnaeus etc used as generic names)? Lavateraguy (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Not certainly identified is the main thing I'm trying to get at. I don't think we need a category that includes every plant that Theophrastus mentioned when many of them can be identified. Nor should it include names for taxa that Linnaeus got from Theophrastus. Cactus is certainly identified. κάκτος is uncertainly identified, but we don't have an article for that topic.

It gets tricky with the plants from religious texts. I'm not sure that "historic" is the right term in that case anyway. Plantdrew (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of plant family names

Merriam-Webster apparently gives the pronunciation of "-aceae" in family names as "-ay-see-ee" (/eɪsii/) – see the recent addition by Quercus solaris to Liliaceae, for example. In the UK the pronunciation "-ay-see" (English: /eɪsi/) now seems the most common – I almost never hear the classical "-ah-ke-eye" (/ɑːkɛaɪ/) these days, although I do hear "-ay-see-eye" (/eɪsiaɪ/).

I'm curious as to how widespread these different pronunciations are. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

An American botanist of my acquaintance, originally from Boston, says "-ay-see-ay", but I don't know whether that is common. Most of the other people I hear are not native English speakers, and the classical "-ah-kay-eye" does happen. I think this confusion has produced considerable confusion about what a family is, because people say things like "the goutweed family", which can be understood as Apiaceae, but then also "this lavender member of the Penstemon family", conflating a genus with a family. Perhaps documenting the pronunciations here would help. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I picked up my pronunciation ("-ay-see") while working on the living collections at Kew, and can't recall ever hearing any of the others - though it was 25 years ago, and things might have changed since (also, I didn't exactly conduct rigorous research on the matter)... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd certainly like to include the two-syllable "-ay-see" if the three syllable "-ay-see-ee" is to be added to family articles, but I don't have good sources. Like PaleCloudedWhite, I just know from experience that this is the most common pronunciation among British botanists and horticulturalists, although I too have heard "-ay-see-ay". The Merriam-Webster "-ay-see-ee" seems to me unusual in the UK.

@Plantdrew, Casliber, Plantsurfer, and Lavateraguy: (active plant editors) what are your experiences/views? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I say "-ay-see". "-ay-see-ee" sounds a little strange to me. "-ay-see-ay" sounds OK. I'm pretty sloppy about saying my vowels with anything approaching the classical pronunciation; if I'm not being careful, I end up pronouncing Arecaceae and Ericaceae almost the same. I think that's why "-ay-see-ee" sounds off for me; it's easier to elide the second "ee" than pronounce it. Plantdrew (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I used to use -ay-see. This might be a spelling pronunciation (vowel clusters in English usually represent a single syllable), or I might have picked it up from BBC gardening programs. I've rarely been in a position to hear plant family names spoken. I now tend to say something like ay-see-ay (I may not be consistent on the quality of the final vowel), on the grounds that it's Latin rather than English. Soft c rather than hard c (Caesar rather than Kaiser) is the traditional British pronunciation of Latin. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Break the word down: Polygon - ace -ae > Polygon ays ee. Simples. I work and mix with professional plant taxonomists and they are consistent in their use of ays-see (or -ay-see if you insist). Plantsurfer 18:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, got me thinking, I say "ays ee" most commonly I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

If I understand correctly English as spoken is often ambisyllabic - consonants don't always clearly belong to one particular syllable. So we have ay-see, ay(s)ee and ays-ee are more of less equivalents. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that the -ay-see pronunciation might have come from French, because from 1905 until 1935, a period when nomenclature was much discussed and largely frozen, the language of the International Botanical Congress was French. French was important in nomenclature before 1905 as well, because Alphonse de Candolle drafted the first code of nomenclature (1867) in French. French names of families end in -acées, pronounced as two syllables, not three. We have adopted at least one other component of the 1867 French, changing the Latin Ordo to the French famille (family). De Candolle seems to have told us to change the Latin pronunciation to make it fit: on pages 31-32 article 67 he admonishes botanists to use the scientific Latin names or their immediate derivatives within modern languages in preference to any other names, which are less precise. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so the problem (at least it's a problem for me) is that Quercus solaris has been adding "-ay-see-ee" pronunciations based on Merriam-Webster, whereas we all seem to agree that this is not the normal pronunciation among those who actually talk about plant families. I'm sure that Plantdrew is right that for native English speakers, whatever their origin, pronouncing "ee" twice in "-ay-see-ee" is off; successive identical consonants are simply not a feature of English. Both "-ay-see-eye" and "-ay-see-ay" are more likely to be acceptable to native speakers than "-ay-see-ee". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Agree. That's an immediate problem. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreement with general themes above (various comments). I'd rather put in first-listed position the ones that plant-science-knowledgeable people most often use. Sounds to me like "-ay-see", "-ay-see-eye", "-ay-see-ay", "-ay-see-ee", in that order. I would not want to exclude "-ay-see-ee", because it is the only one with a WP:RS so far (and indeed there are medical terms for which "ee-ee" is common, albeit not exclusive). But in my view lack of refs on every variant should not stop Wikipedia from doing what's "real"; we should just show the variants and give citations for whichever ones we can. Otherwise we'd have nothing but "-ay-see-ee", which this discussion has shown is not satisfactory by itself. Just so everyone knows, in WP:MED articles, there is a consensus to move etymology and pronunciation out of the lede down to a section. Reason is for readability for scientific laypersons. I'll plan to implement that unless an outcry otherwise. I will modify my edits per all the above. I don't feel the need to add pron to every plant article, but I want to have it at least for a few topics of major economic importance. Thanks, Quercus solaris (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's the first one. I like how this is shaping up. Pretty clean and yet not omitting anything. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Etymology belongs under "Taxonomy" in the standard Plants Template, the definitive source often being the author of the taxon name (I've quite often found that explanations repeated in gardening books, for example, don't agree with the explanation given by the author). Etymology is an intrinsic part of taxon naming. I'd be quite happy with a section on Pronunciation; however, it needs to be fitted into the Plants Template (which Brassicaceae does not properly follow). Peter coxhead (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we need a page at Botanical Latin rather than the current redirect. An important citation would be the section on Pronunciation (pages 51–54) in Botanical Latin: History, grammar, syntax, terminology and vocabulary, Fourth edition, David and Charles, isbn=0715300522 (which the template doesn't allow), 1992 {{citation}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help); Missing pipe in: |publisher= (help), which is largely reproduced from RHS Dictionary of Gardening Supplement 1956: 301–302. Our favourite, -ay-see, doesn't fit either the classical or the traditional English pronunciation that Stearn describes, which would be "-ah-kay-eye" and -ay-see-ee' respectively. He says "These rules cannot satisfactorily be applied to all generic names and specific epithets commemorating persons. About 80 per cent of generic names and 30 per cent of specific epithets come from languages other than Latin and Greek. A simple and consistent method of pronouncing them does not exist." The rules also create difficulties with the -ii and -iae endings derived from personal names, because the stress falls in a place that is not usual for those names. Stearn says "Botanical Latin is essentially a written language, but the scientific names of plants often occur in speech. How they are pronounced really matters little provided they sound pleasant and are understood by all concerned." Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Sminthopsis84, for supplying the pointer to a good reference. Despite never having taken botany classes, I had gathered on my own and absolutely agree with the ideas that (1) there is a lot of variation, both "accepted" and "probably acceptable to whatever extent", and (2) that the bolded concept above is very true. Regarding the latter, my concern is that most laypersons cannot even get to the level of the "pleasant sound" and familiarity with the names in speech (or actually, even more importantly, subvocal/mental voice for one's own reading and learning), because they get stuck at the level of "Solanaceae? What the hell does that sound like? Hmmm, maybe so-LAHN-ə-see-ee-ay-eye-ee-oh-what-the-fuck?" I can attest that that's what most botanical names sounded like in my head for the first 25 years of my life. That is what I want Wikipedia to do a great job with handling. I am sure we can get there. If we could build one central discussion of the subject that covers the ideas above, we could just link to it from individual articles. Each article would simply help laypersons with the root/stem of each word, for example, "Solanaceae begins with so-lə-NAY" "Solanaceae sounds like so-lə-NAY-see or any similar sound" where that bluelink points to an as-yet-unbuilt exposition section, which each reader usually won't follow but, crucially, every reader could follow at any time and most readers will follow at least once or twice in their lives, after which they have a decent handle on what the "pleasant sound" even is (or isn't). So really the goal we're trying to serve is science 101 pedagogy for, frankly, a lot of humans who might not get it anywhere else—not that getting it somewhere else is physically impossible, but just that the bar is too high and it won't happen for enough people. Whereas if we bother to build this right at Wikipedia, it disseminates secondary education more broadly than would happen in a world without Wikipedia. I'll plan to work some more toward the ideas above. Quercus solaris (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Sminthopsis84, your user page's content is awesome and I look forward to digesting it more closely soon. The opening (about the more futile aspects of building Wikipedia science content) presses my depressive realism button kind of hard—as I read it, I know it's true, despite that I wish it weren't—but I was happy to come to the part at, and after, "Knowledgeable people should be warned, but I hope that isn't completely discouraging, just a hint to go slowly and not expect unbounded success." I may have to quote that, with attribution, on my user page, since it encapsulates my current worldview. I am not a scientist (unfortunately) but I am someone with a helping of general education and science literacy who recognizes that the latter things need to get spread around the world a bit more than is happening to date. Quercus solaris (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree that something more about botanical Latin is needed than we have at New Latin (Latin usage up to 1900) or Contemporary Latin (usage since 1900). Neither article mentions that until very recently botanists were regularly churning out a paragraph or two in Latin when describing species, which I think is one of the two most interesting things about recent Latin usage (but I'm biased about how interesting botanical usage is). The other most interesting thing is the Catholic church's attempt to coin new Latin words for phenomenon unknown in classic times; you can browse a Latin/Italian version here. "Brevíssimae bracae femíneae" for hot pants got a fair amount of media attention, but I like "lactūca; acetária; ólera; herbae" for salad and "oppugnátio inermis Iapónica" for karate. They do borrow scientific names for some plants, but bamboo is "harūndo Índica". Plantdrew (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

A difficulty, I think, is that if we insert a section at New Latin, then that being about usage up to 1900 doesn't fit, but if we make a new page, it will be vulnerable to a "one source" tag. Stearn says (p. 6) "Botanical Latin is best described as a modern Romance language of special technical application, derived from Renaissance Latin with much plundering of ancient Greek, which has evolved, mainly since 1700 and primarily through the work of Carl Linneaus (1707–78)." He quotes De Candolle (1880) that it is not for those who love grammatical complications or poetic phrases, and that to learn it might take a month's work for an Italian and three months for an English speaker not already familiar with any language of Latin origin. That also wouldn't fit well at Renaissance Latin, so I think we need a separate page, and will need to scramble for citations other than the single sufficient reference. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I worked at UC botanical gardens and herbariums (N and S) for a few years, many years ago, and everyone said, "-ay-see-ee." Is it possible to source the pronunciations rather than saying "so many writers at Wikipedia think this sounds better so we should put it first?" An encyclopedia should have good sources backing up its entries rather than small but vocal groups of contributors deciding preferences. --Volcanic throat (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Volcanic throat: please read over the discussion above and notice that laying down the law is not what is happening here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sminthopsis84: I'm terribly sorry. Let me strike out my accusation that "laying down the law is what is happening here," should I find it. There is a lot of conversation about what one person prefers or finds harsh or unfamiliar to their ears. I don't see how it matters. --Volcanic throat (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Enough with the sarcasm, please. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

So, looking in various mainstream paper dictionaries, I can't find one that gives a pronunciation for Rosaceae. For example, the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd edition unabridged, 1987 (5.23 kg), has only Rose family ("the plant family Rosaceae, characterized by ...") and Rosacea (rō zã' shē ə). They seem to be following the same advice as Stearn (quoted above), that there is no prescribed pronunciation for botanical Latin. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Botanical nomenclature has never been a spoken language, so there are no citable precedents for any official form of pronunciation. The fact that I say Polygonay-see should not prevent anyone else saying Polygonay-see-aye, though it makes me cringe inwardly. The pronunciation is open to personal interpretation. Odon-tight-ees or Odontitties, it is your call. WP should not therefore, in my opinion, attempt to specify what the pronunciation should be, since that would amount to WP:OR. Plantsurfer 15:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course WP mustn't specify, but that's not actually the issue. There are sources, like Merriam-Webster, that do give pronunciations, and if there are to be sourced pronunciations of family names in articles, it's surely important to ensure that they reflect all the pronunciations commonly used by botanists. This thread started because I was concerned that adding only one pronunciation (the "see-ee" one) was misleading, which indeed seems to be the case – it's one of the pronunciations in use, but only one, and perhaps not the commonest. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a citation findable that says that Botanical Latin is not part of English. That might be what has governed the big oldish dictionary's choice not to include any names of plant families. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I've made a small start on a new page at User:Sminthopsis84/sandbox1, but have to do other things for a couple of days. If anyone would like to add to that, please do. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

To the group: Regarding New Latin being defined (in the lede of its article as of this writing) as having an end date ("c. 1900"): That seems problematic to me. I don't see how one can claim that New Latin is "over now". Yes, no one speaks it (except for a handful of enthusiasts, no doubt), but biology and medicine still use it, and biology still coins new words in it. I do not have any definitive solutions for this at the moment (for example, research done and sources to cite). Just sharing the thought for now. Update: I guess what I should say is that I don't see how a dividing line between New Latin and Contemporary Latin is drawn, and I feel that the Wikipedia article ledes on those subjects should clarify that, if indeed it is accurate. Quercus solaris (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Any cut off date is Original Research, but there's a clear qualitative difference to me from the era when educated people (with a variety of mother tongues) in many fields were fluent in Latin and it functioned as a lingua franca for international communication, and the era when educated people in certain fields may recognize certain Latin nouns and adjectives that are used in their field, but are almost universally unable to construct a grammatically correct Latin sentence (and may have trouble declining the nouns and adjectives they know). Plantdrew (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm a botanist (USA), I work with many botanists, and the "ay-see-ee" pronunciation is almost universal among the professionals I know. However, depending on how distinctly one pronounces it, "ay-see-ee" can sound very much like "ay-see". 160.111.254.17 (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

good point, I like the hypothesis that "ay-see" arises out of linguistic indolence. Plantsurfer 17:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I surveyed my department and here are the results:

“ay-see-ee”: 6 “ay-see”: 2 “ah-kay-eye”: 1 Other: 1

So it would appear that "ay-see-ee" is the predominant pronunciation among botanists, at least in my department, in my very unscientific survey, but it supports what I have casually noted all along. Edited to add: the final syllable is "ae", however one pronounces it (usually "ee" in my American experience, but this may differ between the USA and Europe/U.K.). The penultimate syllable is "e", which is probably pronounced more like "eh". Both syllables are to be pronounced. The most egregious problem is the pronunciation of the "c", which everybody agrees should be a hard "c" in classical Latin but among American botanists is (with some exceptions) pronounced with a soft "c". Hence "ay-see-see", although "ay-seh-ee" is probably closer to what we are trying to say. 160.111.254.17 (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Would someone with the necessary powers please move a draft of Botanical Latin into article space over the current redirect? I accidentally moved it to User:Botanical Latin (but have saved a copy in case it is rapidly deleted with prejudice from that unfortunate name). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  @Sminthopsis84: Fixed. Botanical Latin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is now a full-scale article, and edit history is preserved. Thank you. No such user (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much @No such user:!

-idae represents (IIRC) a subclass - certainly not a tribe, for which the ending is -eae. (Also, I believe that the subfamily ending -oidae gets converted to oid/s, as in alsinoids. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Ooops! Okay now, I think? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a formatting problem with templates at Botanical_Latin#Orthography_of_taxon_names (which I don't know how to fix). Also, do you want to mention that adjectival forms -alean and -aceous? And, I now recall -phyte and -opsid as nominal/adjectival forms.

The formatting problem has arisen since yesterday; apparently template:Divbox no longer works, even the examples copied from the template documentation don't work. I've replaced it with template:Side box. Thanks for the suggestion about content to add, @Lavateraguy:. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Spergularia salina/Spergularia marina

[FNA] has Spergularia marina as a synonym of Spergularia salina, with a note "some authors believe that the correct name for this species is Spergularia marina". [TPL] has S. salina as a synonym of S. marina. Flora of China goes with S. marina, with the note "the nomenclatural history involving the first use of the epithet marina at the species rank is complex, and some authors feel that Spergularia salina is the correct name for this taxon." What do other Wikipedia authors believe and/or feel? Plantdrew (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a taxonomic review so here's some OR based largely on The Plant List and IPNI. They suggest the following (as I have more briefly summarized at Spergularia marina#Taxonomy):

• the basionym is Arenaria rubra var. marina L. (1753)
• the first use of the epithet marina at species level is Arenaria marina by Pallas (1776) – IPNI has the name and author, but no date, and doesn't give Linnaeus' name as the basionym, which it surely is; TPL has the date
• the combination Spergularia marina has been attributed to either "Besser" or "Griseb." and different sources use one or other of these authorities, but TPL (based on WCSP) and IPNI agree that the date for Besser is earlier (1822 versus 1843), so, on this basis, the correct citation is "Spergularia marina (L.) Besser"
• the first use of Spergularia salina is attributed by all sources to "J.Presl & C.Presl" (although the second name is sometimes omitted); IPNI doesn't give a date for the source (Fl. Cech. 95) but TPL gives 1819

So, if Spergularia salina and Spergularia marina are heterotypic synonyms, and if Spergularia marina is based on Linnaeus' 1753 varietas epithet, then Spergularia marina has priority. No source I've found uses both names as separate species, so it appears they are indeed synonyms. In which case the correct name is Spergularia marina (L.) Besser.

However, Article 11.2 of the ICN says "A name has no priority outside the rank in which it is published" and then gives the example "Magnolia virginiana var. foetida L. (1753) when raised to specific rank is called M. grandiflora L. (1759), not M. foetida (L.) Sarg. (1889)." So, this suggests that it's wrong to treat Arenaria rubra var. marina L. as the basionym. Instead we should look to the first use of the epithet marina at specific level, which appears to be Pallas (1776). So my current view, not supported by any sources, is that the correct name might be Spergularia marina (Pallas) Besser – Pallas first treated the taxon at species level in 1776 and Besser first placed it in Spergularia. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Peter, that is exactly what The Plant List says. see [3] Plantsurfer 08:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been working on this again, and what is now above your comment is a bit different, so it's no longer what TPL says – I first agreed with TPL, but now I don't. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This all needs putting to a taxonomic expert! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a nice taxonomy section at Spergularia marina. Trying to figure that out is definitely walking on the edge of the WP:OR precipice! Perhaps leave the page as is, without a synonym list?

The plot thickens. There are three Arenaria marinae in IPNI,

• Allioni (1785) here, page 114, no citation to Linnaeus, so it can't bring the epithet
• Roth (1788) which I haven't looked into
• Pallas, which has no date in IPNI, but Tropicos gives as Reise durch verschiedene Provinzen des rußischen Reichs 3: 603 1776, which is here but nearly unreadable. I see Arenaria maritima on that page, and IPNI has an entry for it, but I do not see Arenaria marina. Tropicos seems to be wrong, though perhaps Pallas made the new combination somewhere else.

A further red herring is that Presl's description of S. salina is here, which makes clear that it wasn't a botched move to the new genus, but a new species description. It says "Arenariae marinae simillima" at the end, it is similar to (but not the same as) Arenaria marina. Someone might perhaps misread that last comment to mean that the type of A. marina was included, which would have made S. salina an illegitimate name (by article 52), but that's only a wild guess about a possible reason for someone to ignore S. salina.

FNA (2005) might have the right species name, but it doesn't include Besser's name in the list of synonyms, so the reasoning might be shaky. They might be following an American tradition going back to Jepson who apparently made Spergularia salina var. tenuis (Greene) Jeps. and perhaps some other combinations (listed in IPNI without dates).

A hopeless tangle, I think. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I couldn't find the Pallas ref online, so your link is helpful.

I think it's not quite hopeless. If you accept that, contrary to the listings of "(L.) ...", the use of marina as a varietal epithet generates no precedence for its use as a specific epithet – and I think the ICN is very clear on this – then, always assuming that S. marina and S. salina refer to the same species, the only question is whether marina was first published as a specific name for this taxon before or after the 1819 S. salina. The key point about the Presl comment "Arenariae marinae simillima" is that it's being accepted that there was already a species named Arenaria marina. So if it's decided that S. salina and A. marina are actually conspecific, rather than similar, then it's implied that the latter has precedence.

However, mention of a name for purposes of comparison isn't publication, so the question remains, who, if not Pallas, first published Arenaria marina enabling Presl to use it as a comparator? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

More anon. Corrections to IPNI and perhaps also Tropicos are being made. Presl doesn't list Arenaria marina in Flora Čechica; we could search other Presl works to see what author the brothers are aware of for that name (I don't feel likely to conduct that search, at least not today). He might be referring to Allioni's species, which has a different type from Linnaeus' var. I'll look into whether Roth it the author of an illegitimate name that Presl might be referring to (the one that Besser is citing as the basionym of S. marina). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The plot continues to congeal: IPNI now indicates that Allioni's name has the same type as Linnaeus', and Pallas' was a figment of an indexer's imagination. It's a slow process that still might not provide suitable citations for wikipedia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Both the historic literature and the detail of the ICN seem to conspire against clarity! Anyway, it does seem clear that the initial Pallas reference in IPNI was an error. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Some text is in place now; critical reading and adjustments invited. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Polianthes

Although our articles on the genus Polianthes and its species cite older versions of the WCSP, or TPL based on WCSP as of 2012, WCSP now places the genus in Agave [4] (as has APweb for some time). Any views on whether we should follow this change? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

which plant?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:9._%E0%B4%B5%E0%B4%AF%E0%B4%B2%E0%B4%B1%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B1%E0%B5%8D_%E0%B4%95%E0%B5%8B%E0%B4%B3%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%AE%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%AA%E0%B4%BF_%E0%B4%AA%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%AA%E0%B5%82%E0%B4%B5%E0%B5%8D.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.253.192.17 (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The question has already been answered at the link in Commons. The file has been placed in the appropriate category, commons:Category:Petunia × atkinsiana. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Insecto polinizando.jpg

Does this a Caesalpinia sp.? Jee 04:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The stigma suggests Peltophorum, perhaps P. pterocarpum. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Jee 17:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Chelidonium's two faces

The article Chelidonium is about two different but related phenomena. The article name and some of the text is about a genus, Chelidonium. The start and most of the text is about a species, C. majus. There is need for a split.--Ettrig (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Chelidonium is a genus with only one species, C. majus, and is thus rightly covered under the one article. See WP:MONOTYPICFLORA. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, although some copy-editing to clarify might be helpful in this article, there is always only one article on monotypic taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Subcategories of flora categories

I am curious: in cases where there is a general flora category for a region (Category:Flora of the Northeastern United States) and a subcategory (Category:Trees of the Northeastern United States), should a tree species, such as Pinus strobus, be placed in both categories, or only in the Trees category? Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions says nothing about this. — Eru·tuon 03:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Since Category:Trees of the Northeastern United States is a subcategory of Category:Flora of the Northeastern United States, it is best to pick the the more specialized tree category for the article, with the more general flora category implied from the tree category. In general WP category annotation practice, if an article is linked to both a cat and a subcat, only the subcat should be retained. --Mark viking (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear to me whether the Trees category hierarchy should strictly parallel the Flora category hierarchy or not (i.e. whether it should also be strictly based on the WGSRPD system). At present it doesn't seem to quite do so. Is the idea to have for the more specialized category hierarchies (e.g. for Trees) something like the following, where there are upwards links in both cases?

Category:Flora of Greatgrandparent area ← Category:Trees of Greatgrandparent area

Category:Flora of Grandparent area ← Category:Trees of Grandparent area

Category:Flora of Parent area ← Category:Trees of Parent area

Category:Flora of Area ← Category:Trees of Area

If so, then I agree that both Category:Flora of Area and Category:Trees of Area should not be present in an article. However, this becomes problematic if the two category hierarchies are not the same, since we agreed to use the strict WGSRPD system for Flora categorization. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I was just commenting on the current state of the categories in question, but you raise a good policy question. I suppose you are referring to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/World_Geographical_Scheme_for_Recording_Plant_Distributions#Bringing_the_flora_categories_into_agreement_with_the_WGSRPD. I'd be in favor of that proposal, but will happily defer to the experts on this issue. --Mark viking (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Currently, Canada and the continental United States have a full set of Trees categories using the WGSRPD system. I created Category:Trees of Subarctic America, which was missing. Mexico does not (it only has Trees of Northeastern Mexico), and I haven't looked elsewhere. I am mainly interested in categorizing North American trees at the moment. — Eru·tuon 20:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There are many Flora and Trees categories that don't follow the WGSRPD system: for instance, Flora and Trees of the Great Lakes region (North America), Flora and Trees of the Great Lakes region (North America), Flora and Trees of the Eastern United States. And then of course there are many that do. I'm not sure why WGSRPD Flora categories should not also have Trees subcategories. — Eru·tuon 20:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There are at least three different ways of categorizing plants based on their native distribution: by the WGSRPD geographical divisions, by ecological regions, and by political units. We decided that there should be a set of "Flora" categories based on the WGSRPD; this doesn't in my view mean either that there shouldn't be other "Flora" categories based on the other criteria or that "Trees" (and similar more specialized) distribution categories have to be based on the WGSRPD, although I'm aware that there are editors who have opposed using political units for distribution categorization. I simply don't know what those who created the "Trees" distribution categories intended. If the "Trees" hierarchy is strictly aligned to the WGSRPD "Flora" hierarchy, then its members can certainly be subcategories. Navigation doesn't work so well if you try to put links across two differently organized hierarchies. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

BioRxiv support in citations

Main page: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1 § BioRxiv_support

This project's feedback would be appreciated in this discussion, as this could greatly (and positively) affect biological citations! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Importance rating

Hello! I am a contributor to WikiProject Plants and I edit and create mainly Hypericum articles. I have worked extensively on List of Hypericum species. It is by no means finished or complete, but my end goal is for it to become a featured list. The purpose of my post is to (1) request advice/comments on how to better the article and achieve FL status and (2) ask for opinions on its Low-importance rating. I'm not familiar with WP Plants's importance scale, but I feel like this list should be medium importance. I just wanted to get unbiased opinions before changing anything. Thanks, and I hope to collaborate with WP Plants more in the future. Fritzmann2002 15:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about the importance - it's a rough guide to level of importance within the topic as a whole. Most individual species and small genera would be "low". No-one would care if you rated a large genus list higher. Will leave article notes on the talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Importance is no big deal. Medium is fine here. The only thing I'd object to would be having a species list with a higher importance than the article on the genus itself. Plantdrew (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

New style note

I added a short note about the use of "a" or "an" with words beginning "herb...", based on previous experiences and discussions. Please check that you're happy with it and discuss here if not. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Acacia macdonnelliensis

Is the original spelling Acacia macdonnelliensis an orthographic error to be corrected to Acacia macdonnellensis? Most sites (TPL, various Australian databases) are going with A. macdonnellensis (usually listing A. macdonnelliensis as an orth. var.). IPNI doesn't even have a record of the spelling with an extra "i". Calling A. macdonnelliensis an orth. var. is frequently attributed to Bruce Maslin's 2001 treatment in the Flora of Australia. But Maslin's website, which is apparently based (in part) on that treatment with subsequent updates has a detailed record at A. macdonnelliensis and a brief nomenclatural record at A. macdonnellensis, which makes it look like Maslin changed his mind about whether a spelling correction was justified. Plantdrew (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice one! The "bible", Stearn's Botanical Latin, pp. 208ff, doesn't give much help in my view; the "i" seems variable. There are examples like "Nepal" → nepalensis, "Benghala" → benghalensis and Londinium → londinensis (not londiniensis), which support macdonnellensis. On the other hand, there are examples like Portuguese Brasil → Latin Brasilia → brasiliensis and German Leipzig → Latin Lipsia → lipsiensis, in which the Latin name has an "i" and the -ensis then added with the "i" retained. But then why does Latin Cambria for Wales give cambrensis not cambriensis? It seems to me from Stearn that the case could be argued either way: directly add -ensis to "Macdonnell" or latinize "Macdonnell" to e.g. Macdonellius and then add -ensis. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, of the examples you quote, there are cases of a stem with i having the i removed when the suffix -ensis is added, but no cases of a stem without i having i added. So, the principle seems to be that i can be removed but not added. Or are there examples you can find where it is added? — Eru·tuon 09:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Recommendations 60C and 60D of the ICN seem to apply (see here). Suppose we were forming a non-geographical epithet from a person whose name is "MacDonnell". Then by 60C we would first latinize the personal name to Macdonnellius (assuming a man is involved) and then use the genitive as per 60C.1(b), i.e. macdonnellii, or form an adjective as per 60C.1(d), i.e. macdonnelliana (to agree with Acacia). Unfortunately 60D.1 doesn't given the same level of detail for geographical epithets. The example given of Quebec → quebecensis could be taken to justify macdonnellensis, but Quebec isn't a personal name. If we first latinize to Macdonellius, then why not macdonnelliensis as per brasiliensis and lipsiensis above? The addition of the "i" would be part of the mandated latinization of personal names ending in consonants (other "r" from "er"). The "i" is consistent with translating MacDonnell Ranges to montes macdonnellii or montes macdonnelliani in Botanical Latin. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that does make sense: Macdonnell → Macdonnellius → macdonnelliensis. Going directly from Macdonnell to macdonnelliensis is the thing that would be odd. — Eru·tuon 22:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The International Plant Names Index has now been adjusted to use the spelling macdonnelliensis, see Talk:Acacia_macdonnelliensis. Other databases seem likely to follow IPNI, whenever they make adjustments. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Papaver cambricum

The Meconopsis cambrica article states, not quite verbatim, that Meconopsis cambrica is instead nested within Papaver, suggesting that Linnaeus' original name should be restored. However, this would leave the genus Meconopsis without a type species and hence without a valid name, unless the name were to be conserved."

The Plant List now treats Papaver cambricum as the accepted name and Meconopsis cambrica as a synonym. Do the taxonomists among you know how the type species issue has been resolved, and how, in your opinion, should WP treat this species? Plantsurfer 17:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Meconopsis is conserved with type Meconopsis regia. See Tropicos and Taxon. References to additional relevant publications can be found at Proposals and disposals (search for Meconopsis). Plantdrew (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Good to know that this has been approved and the article can at last be moved. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Authors of species profiles in the Flora of North America

I'd like to include authors if possible when creating refs to the Flora of North America, but most species profiles don't list an author. (Genus and family pages do, I think.) Does anyone know where to find this information? Or perhaps species profiles are written by the same person who wrote the profile for the genus they belong to. — Eru·tuon 01:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as with the other floras such as Flora of China, it is often necessary to go upwards from a species entry to the genus or family to find the author names. (There seems to be some danger, though perhaps a slight one, of a plant common name being mistaken for an author name.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I've added that information to the documentation page of {{eFloras}}. It's unfortunate that most instances of the template probably don't give authors. — Eru·tuon 20:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Cupressus glabra cone, Sedona Botanical Garden.jpg

The ID is disputed and advanced to a deletion request, unfortunately. So wise and expertise comments appreciated here. :) Jee 04:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Fruit tree identification

Could someone please help me identify the species of this pear tree? And is it even a pear tree? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The fruits look like peaches, but September seems rather late for peaches to be on the tree. Did you really take this on September 7th? Plantdrew (talk)

Yes, the date is correct. I could not tell from visual inspection what the fruit was (could have been peaches, pears, or lemons). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree, it looks like peaches. I see from a web search that a number of peach cultivars do ripen that late in California. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Our article on Manzanar indicates peaches, pears and apples were grown at the internment camp. Of the three, this looks like a peach tree. It looks like peach season is until mid September[5], so this fruit is fairly late but not out of the realm of possibility. --Mark viking (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Agavaceae

It's a bit aggravating that Agavaceae redirects to Agavoideae, placing it as a subfamily of Asparagaceae as per APG III. APG III is one classification, widely but not universally accepted, among several competing classifications; the concept of Agavaceae still exists and is still accepted by some taxonomists. It would be useful to have a separate article on Agavaceae, as a historic and/or alternative classification, including its circumscription (which is not necessarily the same as Agavoideae), who still accepts it as a family and why, as well as why it is rolled into Asparagaceae by APG III (a family circumscription which I must stress has not been universally accepted or adopted!). (I would also note that APG III does NOT provide any infrafamilial classification for Asparagaceae, and "Agavoideae" appears nowhere within the paper.) If Wikipedia has adopted, wholesale, the classification of APG III, this criticism will be played out across many, many different articles. 160.111.254.17 (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Article titles and taxoboxes can only be based on one classification. We have agreed to use APG (currently APG IV, although many articles haven't yet been updated) as the system used for this purpose, because it has the widest level of support. This does not mean just the four main APG papers, but also other reliable sources associated with the system, including APweb.

However, all classifications supported by reliable secondary sources (as per WP:RS) should always be discussed in the Taxonomy section of an article, as, for example, at Scilloideae. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

But there can still be multiple articles. There was previously an article for Agavaceae, which seems to be gone. Every family--in theory, every taxon at every rank--should have an article, describing its history, circumscription, who has recognized it or continues to recognize it, etc. regardless of where it is now synonymized or by whom, (although that should also be part of the article). Each of these articles can easily be linked to what is now considered the "correct" or "current" family (again, according to one particular classification). But combining and eliminating articles, or redirecting them, gives a false sense of confidence, authority, and stability; and does a great disservice to both the history and the concept of botanical classification, which by its very nature is subjective and a matter of (sometimes acrimonious) opinion. 160.111.254.17 (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

As a quick example, here are "reliable sources" recognizing the family Agavaceae, just since 2015: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2015&q=Agavaceae&hl=en&as_sdt=0,9 160.111.254.17 (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

See also my more detailed comments to you at Talk:Hosta#Family classification. No-one disputes the idea that some taxonomists call a particular group of plants the family Agavaceae and others call it the subfamily Agavoideae. Ditto Hyacinthaceae and Scilloideae, Alliaceae and Allioideae, etc. Our articles are about groups of plants, not about names. We're writing articles about plants and groups of plants; the names given to them are secondary – not to be ignored, but not to be focussed on. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"Ecozones" / Biogeographic realms

Please, see the discussion at Talk:Ecozone. Zorahia (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

List of recently extinct plants and List of extinct plants

Hi. I made an article called List of recently extinct plants, generated from IUCN Red List data. Turns out there's already a List of extinct plants. The two lists have much overlap. I'll leave it to others to decide what to do. —Pengo 15:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Since articles with the title "List of recently extinct ..." exist for many other groups, I think there's some merit in splitting List of extinct plants into the "fossils" and the "recently extinct". Then the contents of the latter need to be merged into List of recently extinct plants. What the organizing principle should be – geographical, taxonomic, etc. – isn't clear to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Peter, the sections of List of extinct plants that deal with post ~1500ad should be migrated to List of recently extinct plants, and I would suggest that List of extinct plants be moved to List of prehistoric plants to match similar animal lists.--Kevmin § 15:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Vachellia redux

We have Acacia (Vachellia) and Vachellia, for which a merge has been proposed. Can folks please opine at Talk:Vachellia so we could confirm consensus? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have a brainwave about how to direct edits such as this one to an appropriate place? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciations for Latin taxon names

Please see a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style regarding pronunciations for Latin taxon names. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphan maidenhair

I've probably done this wrong, not a botanist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. ;-) I created Orphan maidenhair. If it's another name for something we already have, please let me know.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: according to Conard (1951), p.76, it's Stipa pennata, on which we already have an article, so the information you've added should be moved there and a redirect left. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Will do!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There is a merge discussion of interest at Talk:Cinchona. Please participate. Shyamal (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Hazelnut (male flower), overlay of 7 channel autofluorescence microscopy (30458886372).jpg

Hazelnut (male flower), overlay of 7 channel autofluorescence microscopy (30458886372)

This is an FPC candidate in Commons now. We would like to know more about it. Could you help us to improve the file description and categories, please? Jee 04:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggested renaming

Opinions are invited about a proposal to rename Euphyllophytina to "Euphyllophytes". Please see Talk:Euphyllophytina#Suggest_renaming. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Perilla, multiple merger proposals

Two separate merger proposals have been made for Perilla. If interested, please see Talk:Perilla#Another_merge_suggestion_after_four_years and Talk:Perilla_(plant)#Merge. Thank you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Plants/Archive67 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Related educational project

Just wanted to call attention to Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Catawba College/BIOL 3575 Plant Taxonomy (Fall 2016), which looks to be expanding or improving several plant articles. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

There will be quite a lot of cleanup work needed on the affected pages. The course is not yet over, but the instructor is ready to take into account who has made changes. If anyone feels they have energy to spare, there's plenty to be done. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Backlog of the Week!

Hey folks! Category:Plant articles needing attention is listed as the Backlog of the Week this week! Very exciting. It looks like there's just 15 articles on here. Pages get added to the category if the parameter |attention=yes is used in the WP Plants tag. I'm not sure how much that parameter is really used by members of the project, but if someone who knows a thing or two about plants (i.e. not me) could take a look through some of the marked pages, that would be great! Thanks a bunch! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Rank of "alliance"

The taxobox templates, whether manual or automated, are designed to use latinized names for ranks (e.g. "ordo" rather than "order"). It doesn't always matter whether a rank is one of the 'known set' (e.g. those encoded at {{anglicise rank}}), but some features do depend on knowing the relative position of a rank (e.g. generating a subtitle for subordinate taxa if |subdivision_ranks= is omitted, or deciding whether a taxon should always be shown).

One rank not currently provided for is "alliance", which seems mainly (?only) used for orchids. Thus Template:Taxonomy/Trichoglottis (alliance) appears in Category:Taxonomy templates using unrecognized rank parameters.

Should we explicitly provide for this rank? Is there a latinized name? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included. It is not a rank that could be positioned higher or lower than other ranks. It is a statement that taxonomic confusion exists. See Alliance (biology). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It's used within Malveae, as an informal rank between genus and subtribe. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Historically, Lindley used alliance for groups which we would now call orders. (In those days families were still called orders.) Lavateraguy (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

In Rubiaceae it is used as a rank between tribe and subfamily. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

If alliance is not used at a consistent position in the hierarchy, it shouldn't be supported. Right now it is used in 519 manual taxoboxes; I've marked it as a deprecated taxobox parameter for now (which will make it easier to check on exactly which articles use it once some caches update). Plantdrew (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if it's not used consistently in different families, as seems clearly to be the case from Lavateraguy's information, it can't be included in the automatic taxobox as a definite rank (it could be treated as "unranked" perhaps). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Examples also found for Fabaceae (e.g. genistoid), Asteraceae (e.g. silversword) and Crassulaceae (e.g. Aenonium) Lavateraguy (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

So the problem seems to be that it's a quite widely used term, but without a consistent meaning. Um... Peter coxhead (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In orchids, is it consistently at genus level or above? I suspect there are cases where a species Aus bus would be included in the Cus alliance without genus Aus being in that alliance, but hopefully those are rare. Displaying it below the binomial would surely be very odd, but perhaps it could go above the genus as Alliance (unranked) with a link to Alliance (biology). It would be nice to add some more examples to that page; User:Lavateraguy could you point to a couple of citations? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

For Malveae it is (Kubitzki, K. and C. Bayer. 2003. Malvaceae. Pp. 225–311 in The families and genera of vascular plants vol. 5: Malvales, Capparales and non-betalain Caryophyllales, ed. K. Kubitzki. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.) used effectively an intermediate rank between genus and (sub)tribe - they don't use subtribes, but the traditional subtribes - Abutilinae and Malvineae - I'd add Plagianthinae - are much larger groupings than the alliances. (There as several taxonomic problems around Malvaceae, and not all of the alliances turn out to be monophyletic, but the same holds for several genera as well.) Elsewhere alliance seems to be used to denote a group of taxa (commonly genera, but sometimes species or tribes) which are more closely related to each other than to other taxa of the same rank within the parent taxon. Alliance names are commonly based on the name of a taxon (e.g. Malva alliance)but sometimes on combination of taxa (e.g. Aerides-Vanda alliance), a vernacular name (e.g. silversword alliance), or an adjective (e.g. genistoid alliance or genistoids - -oid here means -like, not of a subfamily). Citations for Myrtaceae, Rubiaceae, Echeveria (Crassulaceae), Crassulaceae, Fabaceae (genera), Fabaceae (tribes). See also Silversword alliance, Genistoids Lavateraguy (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In Malveae alliance may be an intercalated rank as permitted by ICN Art. 4.3. I don't know about Orchidaceae, but the rest don't seem to qualify. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In Fabaceae references to genistoid and galegoid alliances can be found, but some of the other -oid clade names don't seem to have been called alliances. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Alliance is also a syntaxonomic rank. (We could do to either have phytosociology expanded, or an syntaxonomy article added.) Lavateraguy (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)