Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive14

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Plant images

I have recently created Category:Plant images and placed Category:Images of flowers under it and started populating these categories with apropriate images I have found on wikipedia. Plant images will need further subcategories but I haven't figured out what ones would be appropriate. I would like help in my effort to categorize plant images most have no category and if they were placed in an appropriate category they would be easier to find for people working on plant related articles. Irate velociraptor 06:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's already been done through commons:Category:Plants and commons:Category:Plantae, there's no need to duplicate the (huge) effort --Melburnian 09:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the images on Wikipedia that can't be uploaded to commons might need categorization, too. I had thought it might be inappropriate to create image-only categories on Wikipedia, but per Help:Image page#Categorizing images, I guess it isn't. So go for it. I think it's useful for the PD-US and fair use images that can't be uploaded to Commons and categorized there. (I have about 35 images from a 1908 monograph which is PD in the US but not in Germany so I can't put them on Commons. I had wondered about categorizing them, so now I'll probably create an image subcat.) --Rkitko ^(talk) 11:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Plant

I've made some structural changes to the Plant article, and think they help to group the page's content into broad themes. Please take a look at these changes and make suggestions, additions, etc. Four major omissions I noticed as a result of doing this: (1) The article only mentions photosynthesis in the introductory paragraph and does not mention the ecological roles of plants as primary producers, oxygen factories, or structural compoenents of biomes, (2) No mention is made of plant cells, cell walls, or plastids, (3) No mention is made of basic plant structural organization: stem, root, leaf, (4) Only a brief mention is made of the alternation of generations or plant reproduction. --EncycloPetey 04:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I would order it life processes, or life history, then ecology, then importance. Yes, I would add these sections, first of all, one on the basic plant structural organization, but not stem, root, leaf, because this is discussing all green land plants, not just vascular plants. Yes, it needs a better section on the life cycle. KP Botany 04:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

While vascular botanists gripe that bryophytes don't have "real" stems, roots or leaves, mosses and liverworts have the same basic organization, probably as a result of the same genes. In any case, the leaves of four major lines of vascular plants (lycopod, horsetail, fern, seed plant) evolved independently anyway (and probably twice in the ferns), so "leaf" does not refer to single homologous organ anyway. Bryologists call the structures of a moss "stem" and "leaf". --EncycloPetey 04:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've used the {{clade}} template to add a phylogeny of the green plants to the article. --EncycloPetey 16:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

...and have added a diversity table with citations for the number of species in each division. --EncycloPetey 18:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

botany literature categorisation

Hi, over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#CfD nomination there is a proposal to rename some botany related cats. Could we have opinions from this wikiproject please ..., John Vandenberg 12:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Botanical author template

May I suggest that the template wording:

The standard author abbreviation Somebody is used to indicate this individual as the author when citing a botanical name.

be changed to something less stilted e.g. The standard abbreviation Somebody is used for this botanical author. and perhaps not be bounded by two lines. Whether the template is justified at all is another moot point, my feeling being that the abbreviation could readily be included in the body of the text. It's not an excessively important bit of information, though the present treatment seems to make it appear so. Raasgat 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The template allows for immediate categorization, linking, and standardization, which is highly desirable when dealing with a large number of pages that must contain the same information. Your suggested rewording also has some problems. The author is not botanical, and the abbreviation is only used when it appears following a scientific name, never in other circumstances. --EncycloPetey 20:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Having been a botanist for the last 68 years, I'm aware of the appropriate places to use an author abbreviation. Perhaps I failed to lucidly explain my reservations. Being a botanist does indeed make an author 'botanical' in the same sense that one has 'botanical painters' or 'botanical people'. However, the main problem is the appearance and positioning of the template, which I feel can do with a lot of improvement to make it blend in, and failing that, be put at the very bottom of the article where it would give least offence. Cheers, Raasgat 13:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be incorporated as text within a Biographical summary box of some kind? --EncycloPetey 15:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It usually is: {{Infobox Scientist}}. But very few of our botanist articles have that infobox. And I think when the botanist author abbreviation parameter in that infobox is used, it simply recreates the {{botanist}} in the article text. That could be changed, though. --Rkitko ^(talk) 15:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not following your argument completely, but would like to add that the author names are important, because a number of same names are used for different taxons and often the only way to know which group of plants are being referred to, is by the author name given. I have run into this problem a few times on Wikipedia. Hardyplants 20:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. For example, List of Acer species distinguishes between 3 different Acer montanum (allsynonyms of other species), and Taxonomy of Banksia mentions 4 different genera who were named "Banksia". Circeus 15:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original query, I agree it is rather stilted (guess who wrote it!); I'll suggest a change to the following - MPF 23:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The standard author abbreviation Somebody is used to indicate this author when citing a botanical name.

Striped French marigold

Bunch of problems with this article (for one thing, it's native to Mexico, not Europe)... no time this morning, but the articles on that genus as a whole are a bit thin if not counterfactual (don't have time to do more than leave a note this morning). All sorts of strange redirects too, so probably needs someone with admin tools to properly clean it up. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 11:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the information in that article came from Petula oil (old version here), which was later merged & redirected to "striped french marigold". Have no idea how reliable the information is, and most of it has been stripped out in the latest version. (On doing some more checking, it seems that "petula oil" is a real thing and probably merits its own article separate from Tagetes patula, or at the very least some discussion in the Tagetes patula article.) MrDarwin 13:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've give it a bit of a clean up including redirecting it to the botanical name, fixing redirects, removing some copyvio sections and adding a couple of references, but some unsourced material remains and a lot more detail could be added. --Melburnian 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the view that T. erecta and T. patula are the same species common? (I'm assuming the current taxonomic consensus makes this paper mostly useless...) Circeus 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

GRIN treat them as distinct species. Your second link I just get an error message, can you check the ref? - MPF 23:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It was missing a slash after .org. Circeus 23:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Chlorophyta taxonomy

Hi all,

I'm not an algae expert, but I've begun to make stubs for some taxa in the Chlorophyta, e.g., Category:Algae taxonomic orders. I'd appreciate any insights or suggestions that people here have on them. They definitely need filling out! :( Willow 01:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I finished the Chlorophyta, down to the level of genus — whew! Any contributions or assessments from the experts here would be very welcome; thanks much in advance! :) Willow 23:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Want to tackle the Desmids? ;) --EncycloPetey 16:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pete! OK, I think I've done the Desmids down to the level of genus. Would you please look them over and tell me if they'e OK, or could be improved somehow? Thanks! Suggestions of other taxa in need of filling in would be very welcome as well. :) Ta ta for now, Willow 20:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though the taxoboxes you've used have kingdom "Viridiplantae" and division "Strptophyta". While some taxonomists use that system, it would put all the land plants into the single division Streptophyta. The convention currently followed on WP is to use kingdom Plantae (synonymous with Viridiplantae) and division Charophyta. Still, with 5000 species of desmids, getting them down to the level of genus is pretty good! --EncycloPetey 22:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I can fix that, if you'd like, or I could devote myself to some other taxonomic family needing attention. Is it a serious problem? Willow 22:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It does create a problem when we're not internally consistent. The average users will not know the intricasies of taxonomy and nomenclature. It's better to head off the confusion and questions by being consistent. --EncycloPetey 01:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the Desmids, but now I should go back and fix all the Chlorophyta. Would you please look some of them over and tell me if there's anything else I should change? Thanks, Petey! :) Willow 13:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to do what I can thins weekend, but the current state of Chlorophyta classes and subclasses is not one of my strongpoints. My own resources in that area are rather dated, and came out around the time the first angiosperm and major green plant molecular phylogenies were being published. --EncycloPetey 16:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting photos

This diff rather took me by surprise. It seems to me a pretty useful new category for this project. Hesperian 03:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Christmas trees

Anyone know anything about fir and pine trees and their pests, I am working on some agricultural stuff about Christmas tree farming in my user space, see User:IvoShandor/Christmas tree farm, and have a sub-article about Christmas tree pests, essentially I am wondering if I should broaden the scope, or if pests only applies in terms of agriculture. Obviously, wild trees are affected by some of the same species (some invasive, some not) so in that case I would guess that the article might be off-topic. Also, looking for any photos of farms anyone might have. IvoShandor 07:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Christmas trees are specifically horticultural products and you might find more info under hort sources instead of ag sources, Balsam fir and Scotch pine are the two main trees used in North America. Pathogens that infect Balsam are many and varied including Black Mildew, several Blights, Cankers, twig Dieback, Mistletoe, Needle Cast, rots of the heartwood and roots, a number of different rusts. In the landscape they are relatively trouble free trees, in tree farms they can suffer when the branches or truck are damaged. Since Christmas tree production involves intensive maintenance such as pruning these pests can be a problem with poor maintenance tecnequics and practices. Pines even have more problems, with over 200 different pathogens identified in the US alone., though rust is the main problem and control mostly involves removing alternative hosts near the production area. Many of these pathogens are regional based, so production areas in the southern US will have different ones than those in other parts of the country or world. Hardyplants 09:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help, but what you have written so far looks great. A big step up from the current state of tree farm, I'd say. Kingdon 15:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I have found in the U.S. ag sources tend to have the lowdown, other countries it appears more horticultural. Different countries classify the product differently, in the U.S. I believe it is classified as an agricultural product, which is a relatively recent development if I am not mistaken. I would also note that the first part of the series I am working on is now in the main space at Christmas tree cultivation. I went with cultivation over farming so as to avoid confusion with the main Christmas tree farm article, which this one was spun off from. Most of the daughter articles will come first because once I realized how long it would be I had to spin it off and can't really complete the farm article until all the daughters are complete. If anyone wants to make any tweaks on the cultivation article, feel free, its up for GA and DYK. IvoShandor 18:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The the US department of Agriculture over sees all, they have a survey each year that records none Ag crops including christmas trees I believe. I would get a copy each year after completing the survey but never had much use for it, I do not need to know how many acres of petunias are grown in Alabama. If you are doing research on Christmas tree production it would most likely be done with in the Hort department of a University instead of the Ag department. You have a nice article, are you involved in this field or did just pick this subject out of the blue? Hardyplants 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd definitely venture the later, since Ivo's usual dwellings are history and architecture, especially in Illinois. Circeus 23:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct Circeus. : ) I was appalled when I went searching for this topic one day and discovered there was nothing here about it. Gasp! I needed a break from the strenuousness of history and architecture, the Black Hawk War was driving me positively mad. As for the horticulture stuff, thank you, I will delve into what I can find.IvoShandor 07:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Green false hellebore

Could an admin please move this article to Veratrum viride? There are so many common names for this plant (which I grew up knowing simply as "false hellebore") that the common name(s) should direct to the botanical name, and not vice-versa. MrDarwin 15:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I actually am responsible for creating it in the first place. Circeus 16:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! MrDarwin 17:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

New plant stub proposals

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#New plant stubs. Proposing Santalales, Cactaceae, and three major monocot groups --EncycloPetey 00:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't know why you bothered asking. Since when do you have to ask permission to create something on Wikipedia? Who gave the WP:STUB project the right to decide what stubs are allowed? Well, that's my rant for today. Hesperian 02:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a necessary coordination effort. There are thousands of different stubs. If there was no coordination, it would be a mess. Not only would every stub have it's own unique naming format, but there would be ambiguous names (words can have more than one meaning), as well as countless duplicates. There just happen to be a bunch of folks who keep themselves broadly aware of past conventions and existing stubs so that clashes of interest are avoided before they happen. There's value in discussing with others, since this is a community effort with agreed upon standards, not a free-for-all. --EncycloPetey 02:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Too bad the WP:STUB people don't think of it that way. I once created a perfectly sensible and well-formed stub, and got a nasty notice on my talk page:

It has come to our notice that you have recently created a new stub type. As it clearly states at WP:STUB, at the top of most stub categories, on the template page for new Wikiprojects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation....

I'm afraid that little piece of authoritarian nonsense pushed my contrary-button. Never shall I prostrate myself before the mighty WP:STUB gods. If any of you guys ever want a stub created, and can't be bothered going through an arbitrary process of begging permission from the self-appointed stub-OWNers, feel free to ask bitter old me. Hesperian 05:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Stubs are a type of category that are particularly silly to allow to proliferate. The situation was ridiculous before the project stepped in. While I agree it looks mildly OWN-y, it's not much more than the brouhaha you'll create by, say, randomly tagging articles as GA. Circeus 05:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to see some silly proliferation, check out {{Expand}}. A group of editors has been systematically tagging hundreds of thousands of articles with a note that they need to be expanded. Well, duh. I asked about it on the talk page and not one person bothered to tell me why this was a good idea, the least bit helpful, or any better than (or even particularly different from) stub tags. MrDarwin 13:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've long been tempted with nominating that awful thing for deletion. It's not helpful, and rarely, if ever used correctly. 90% of those I see I remove. Circeus 15:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There is similar silliness in the way some people tag with {{Unreferenced}}. The article on Camus' The Plague got tagged as "unreferenced", even though the entire article is about a book—with a huge bibliographic information box in the upper right corner and even a picture of the book being referenced. --EncycloPetey 16:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto those silly {{WikiProject Plants|class=|importance=}} things that have been cluttering up every talk page . . . completely pointless, and a huge time-waster for anyone to keep up-to-date as articles grow. - MPF 17:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The assessment boxes allow us to see progress as we make it, and the summary chart (showing the preponderance of poor quality, top priority articles) is one thing that helped inspire me to start working on WP plant articles again. It's no more a time-waster than grades and progress reports given by schools. The point is to focus effort, to see progress, and thereby to build morale. If you don't want to do them, you don't have to, but they are beneficial for some of us. --EncycloPetey 18:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Calceolaria herbeohybrida

Anyone have any information on the topic of this article? I was going to replace the taxobox with a cultivar infobox, but web sources aren't exactly clear - is it × herbeohybrida, a single hybrid, Calceolaria herbeohybrida with many cultivars derived from it, or an interspecific cultivar group? --Rkitko ^(talk) 14:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Mabberley indicates that Calceolaria x herbeohybrida Voss has Calceolaria x hybrida Forbes as a synonym, but I have no other information. --EncycloPetey 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a Cultivar Group. I've added a bit more from RHSD. - MPF 16:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 17:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Public domain images

Don't know if anyone is familiar with this public domain image repository. Weeds and insects. IvoShandor 17:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Took a look; so far, more use to insect people than for plants, as the plant pics (unlike the insect ones) are under copyright - MPF 18:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Jubula

I started doing the page for the family Jubulaceae, and noticed that the wikilink for the genus Jubula is for an owl. It seems weird that there would be a common name for an owl, and a plant, but whatever. What I want to know is if there is a standard for how to disambiguate the link to the Jubula genus of liverworts. Murderbike 23:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd create it as Jubula (plant). It's actually not all that uncommon to find the same genus name used for both a plant and an animal. WikiSpecies has a huge list of such names. --EncycloPetey 00:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The question is for the DAB, though. You just make the redirect page a DAB for Jubula (animal) and Jubula (plant). There are a number of these, actually, where a plant and animal share the same genus name. KP Botany 00:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) Sigh... What KP said. Circeus 00:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Then Jubula (animal) is a link to Maned Owl while Jubula (plant) is a link to Jubulaceae. KP Botany 00:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've set up Jubula as a proper disambiguation page. The page for Jubula (plant) has also been set up with a taxobox for the liverwort genus. --EncycloPetey 00:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I hate doing dabs. KP Botany 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Announcements

Is there any point in making announcements on a subpage that isn't transcluded anywhere? Do you all have this page on your watchlists, or is posting there no better than piping to /dev/null?

Anyhoo, Banksia telmatiaea is at FAC.

Hesperian 12:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's like piping to /dev/null. Like /Peer reviews and /Collaboraton, I suppose ;-) Aelwyn 15:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

ICBN 18.5 & 18.6

I made some minor changes in some family articles. Modern publications usually prefer using typified names for all the families, but I'd like to remind that, according to the last version of the ICBN [1], the names Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, Poaceae, Clusiaceae, Lamiaceae, Fabaceae, Arecaceae and Apiaceae are considered alternatives to Compositae, Cruciferae, Gramineae, Guttiferae, Labiatae, Leguminosae/Papilionaceae, Palmae, Umbellifeae and their use is barely permitted, not even encouraged. Aelwyn 18:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OT And I have another question: the same ICBN states that Nasturtium nasturtium-aquaticum is not validly published. Other wikis refer to watercress as N. officinale, Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum, Nasturtium microphyllum. Which one is currently accepted? Could somebody please help fixing? Thx Aelwyn 19:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting the interpretation that their use is "barely permitted". The ICBN does not encourage the use of one name over the other. "Cruciferae" and "Brassicaceae" are two different names for the same family; the use of either name is permitted and both are considered equally valid in a nomenclatural sense. Although it's a somewhat separate issue, there is a strong consensus among botanists to use the typified (i.e., "-aceae") names. MrDarwin 19:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

From ICBN 18.6: The use, as alternatives, of the family names indicated in parentheses (the typified ones) in Art. 18.5 is authorized. Maybe "barely permitted" was a bad word choice (an unhappy word choice one would say in Italian), my intention wasn't polemic. In some articles (e.g. Lamiaceae) the "traditional" names were not even included, and in some (Arecaceae)) they were treated as common synonyms, which they are not. I know there is a consensus, but I wanted to point out that we can't forget the "law". Aelwyn 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be all well and good if we were a wiki dedicated to using the ICBN as the sole source of guidance. But we're an encyclopedia founded on an idea of consensus. The ICBN is still important and represents a partial consensus by those that prepare it, but I prefer to defer to the experts working in those areas of taxonomy and the larger academic consensus. --Rkitko ^(talk) 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that both alternative names should be included; names like "Labiatae" and "Palmae" are still found occasionally in some references, and are quite common in older references. (In fact this subject might be worth an article in and of itself!) MrDarwin 20:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood the discussion when I read it the first time around. Disregard my earlier comment. I, too, agree any and all names applied to taxa should be included in the article (within reason - I'm working on some species articles in Utricularia that have pages and pages of synonyms in the monograph I'm using). The "traditional names" should most certainly be included in the text if they haven't been already. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 20:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Reorg of Category:Botany books

Today, someone created Category:Botany handbooks and guides, as a subcategory of Category:Botany books and Category:Handbooks and manuals. It came to my attention when Flora Australiensis was placed into it. To my mind, this seemed a singularly clumsy category into which to place one of the most monumentally brilliant botanical works ever.

I have responded by creating the following subcategories of Category:Botany books:

Category:Florae, for works that document the plants that occur in a given area or location; this currently has 25 articles in it.
Category:Herbals, for works that document the medicinal properties of plants; this currently has 6 articles in it.

There are now only 11 plants in the parent category.

One obvious class of works that is missing is those works that focus on a given taxon, such a books on orchids, palms or my beloved Banksia. I would have created this subcategory by now, but couldn't think of a good name. Category:Taxonomic treatises tempted me, but this would seem to be restricted to books that deal with taxonomy, as opposed to books whose scope is restricted to a taxon. Also it would not be restricted to botany. Any ideas?

The other issue is what to do with Category:Botany handbooks and guides. This is currently empty, although oone can imagine it being used for field guides, horticultural manuals, laboratory manual, and so forth. Personally, I'm inclined to delete it for now.

Hesperian 12:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You've convinced me; I have moved also Wild Flowers Worth Knowing, that was momentarily in my clumsy category, to the Florae category. As far as I'm concerned, "Botany handbooks and guides" can be deleted. Do you think categories "Florae", "Herbals" and equivalent animalia categories (see, for example, most books under Category:Ornithological literature) should be placed under a new super-category "Field guide" or similar?

I agree with the need for a "Taxonomic treatises" category. I would create separate botany and animalia categories, under another super-category, but don't have ideas for names right now.

RickJP 13:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[Cat:Botanical monographs] or [Cat:Taxonomic monographs]? 'Monograph' seems to be the usual name given to such texts, even if they cover more than one taxon. - MPF 22:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The category might be useful for actual field guides. KP Botany 01:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

each subject is different. Botany has its own sets of standards & categories for these things, which are a little different elsewhere. The ornithologists do it a little differently. -- I think you might want to separate popular from technical works--for popular works I think Field guides is the most immediately understandable term. I wouldn't use it for technical works meant for the herbarium. I am not sure Floras is obvious to non-specialists without explanation--but doesn't it mean geographically-based? (I've seen the English plural more than the Latin). The only precaution is to explain the use of Monograph as Taxonomic monograph if you want to use the word.--as said above, the scope of the group included can be either narrow or very wide. Treatise to me implies multi-volume. Botany handbooks and guides may still be useful for miscellaneous works, if we have any, such as how to run an herbarium or photograph flowers. --I think in fact we need that as an article Monograph (systematic biology) perhaps might be the title. Just my 2cents. But how about changing Botany books to botanical literature? DGG (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Florae can be geographically or temporally constrained, the Rhynie Flora would be correct (if there were one). KP Botany 02:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Vienna Dioscurides is surely wrongly placed in Category:Florae; it is a Herbal. But I know how touchy you lot are, and won't interfere. Johnbod 03:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I populated these subcategories, and I don't know anything about the Vienna Dioscurides. If you do, then please fix it. Hesperian 03:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Vienna Dioscurides is a famous herbal, or includes part of a famous herbal. Almost anything older than the 17th century will be an herbal rather than a flora, so it would be safer to call older books herbals. Johnbod, if you have the knowledge, go for it, please, as you are correct. Thanks. KP Botany 23:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Adaptable range"

I've been seeing more maps like the ones in Dwarf Palmetto, Rhapidophyllum hystrix and Lagerstroemia purportedly showing the "adaptable range" of a species. My first question is where these maps are coming from (in which case there may be copyright issues); if the maps are being produced specifically for Wikipedia articles, my second question is whether such maps represent "original research". MrDarwin 23:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good questions, but I'm more wondering about globalization. If these plants are mainly cultivated in the United States, maybe it isn't a big deal, but for plants that are cultivated around the world, I would think that a written description (for example, mediterranean climate, hardiness zone, etc) would be easier to handle than a map. Kingdon 02:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

They're pretty much copied from University of Florida extension, e.g. Sabal minor (pdf file). They (having looked at the ufl maps before) are also absolutely cr@p in terms of realistic ability to grow the species, based solely on USDA hardiness zone number and taking no account of effects of climate at other times of the year. As such, yes, they are unproven claims, not based on actual observation of successful cultivation. I also agree with Kingdon about globalisation - any map made, should either just cover the native range (my preference), or should cover adaptation worldwide. I'd strongly recommend getting rid of them. BTW, on the subject of Rhapidophyllum hystrix, can anyone get a decent photo of one? Ideally in the wild. The only current pics are of one that's been hacked to bits by a madman, and a seedling - hardly representative examples of the species!! - MPF 11:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The USDA zones are useful but not for this type of exercise, as MPF states, there are many other factors that effect a plants ability to live somewere else. I like maps that show general ranges of were the species are native too, thought they are often misinterpreted by people to mean that the species lives in the entire area covered by the shaded out portions of the map - thus maybe misleading. And the idea that one can guess were the plant might grow, is doubly misleading and I think best avoided. Hardyplants 13:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I compared the map in the Wikipedia article to the map in the University of Florida article and they are not the same, not even particularly similar. So again I'm wondering where the maps came from. I put a question on the editor's talk page (including a link to the discussion here) but haven't heard back yet. A map showing the native range might be useful (if such could be reproduced from a verifiable and non-copyrighted source and not as original research) but as they stand the "adaptable ranges" seem to represent pure speculation to me, particularly since the source of their information is not referenced. MrDarwin 13:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Monochasial cymes

I'm trying to re-write the article about Inflorescences. My main source is still the German article I had shown you some time ago. The fist part was not very hard to write (still needs much copyedit), but I'm having problems in descibing drepanium, cincinnus, rhipidium and bostryx and unfortunately I can't find good examples to show them in 'real life' too. Can anyone please check my definitions (bottom of this page) before I go on? Any advice is very welcome! Aelwyn 13:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the terms used are alien to me. So I can't help you much, I am used to terms used to describe North American species but there is a whole world of other plants out there that I am ignorant of. Drepanium is sickle shaped, I wonder what the difference is between this and scorpoid? Cincinnus is a scorpioid cyme, thus as the flowers open the inflorescence unwinds, starts curled up. Rhipidium is a fan shaped structure with the flowers on branches of other flowers. Bostryx is maybe a reverse scorpoid cyme were as the flowers open up, the end of the rachis or stem curls around, ends curled up. Good start on the translation, when your post it live I can fill in some meat so to speak, if you want. 14:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course (I suppose I can fill in some meat means something good for me!). I really can't understand those terms, I think I'll be forced switch back to a simpler scorpioid-helicoid scheme unless help comes from a kind and knowledgeable plant guy. Thank you anyway Aelwyn 21:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hope you will tie in the bract. Man, I love the bract.Mmcknight4 00:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's finished. I've left all of the description of different monochasia, I hope it's correct and understandable. It could still be improved much: something about position, evolution and diffusion should be added and solitary flowers and infructescences should be mentioned, but I'll leave these tasks to someone else. Could somebody please check it and copyedit (link)? Thank you very much! Aelwyn 09:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC) PS: Everybody loves bracts!

Especially foliaceous bracts...!? I can look at in the few days...hopefully some others will before then. Mono=one chasia = i am going to assume is the stem, so these might be describing flowers produced on only one side of a single branching rachis, then there is a top surface or a bottom surface were attachments can occur (or the side, which might be the fan shape) This is a guess. When time permits will see if something more definet can be gleaned from sources. Hardyplants 09:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A monochasium is kind of cyme. It is already in the article (Organisation > Simple inflorescences > Cymose infloresces), only there are four kind of monochasia that are much harder to describe. Thank you for your helpfulness. It's an important article and it may have errors and inaccuracies, so, once again, it needs to be reviewd by some experts before I put it in Wikipedia space. Thanks Aelwyn 19:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Plant hormones

After every one is done helping with the inflorescence article, I could use some major editing and some pictures and diagrams for the plant hormone page. I have slowly been plugging away at the page and almost have it past a stub, but need editing.Hardyplants 09:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject to say whether you missed anything, but it seems like a well-organized treatment, with no undue weight on anything. I did some copy-editing and wikifying, but I'm not too worried about that kind of thing - those skills are not as scarce here as the skills of knowing plant biology and having some references handy. Kingdon 18:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Usefulness of some articles

With the new article on inflorescences, are panicle, raceme, umbel and pedicel unuseful? Should they redirect to Inflorescence, like cyme? IMO, they should Aelwyn 09:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you ask me in the abstract, I suppose I'd favor longer articles which cover a subject, rather than short articles which are basically extended definitions. In this case, however, if I wanted to know about a pedicel (or one of the other three), I'd probably be happier with those articles than inflorescence. The photos are one reason. The other one is that inflorescence presents a lot of information which could easily be overwhelming. One factor is that those articles might need work that no one wants to do, however (for example I noticed that Raceme links to Indeterminate growth which only down the page gets around to saying that indeterminate means something specific for inflorescenses). So I don't know whether my first reaction of liking those articles is something to go with or not. One way to think of it is to think of Inflorescence as being in Wikipedia:summary style (or something similar). That way articles like Panicle aren't so pressed for space; they can include multiple photos, a list of plant families which tend to have those kinds of inflorescences, comparison of similar forms, etc. Kingdon 12:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they could be expanded on greatly and cover much more ground than the inflorescense page. There are many groups of plants that can show great variation in these structures and it would be nice to have that represented in the pages. To me that is what makes life-forms so interesting is the variation with in the same organ over a wide group of organisms.12:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyplants (talk • contribs)

Err... you are probably right. But decriptions of corymb and thyrse should be deleted from panicle and, for consistency, each kind of inflorescence (at least cyme (botany)) should have its page. They are probably useful overall, but are rather unuseful as they are now. Thanks! Aelwyn 12:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Edible?

Does anyone else think it's a problem for Category:Christmas tree farming to be a sub-cat of Category:Crops which is a sub-cat of Category:Edible plants? Who eats Christmas trees? Murderbike 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well...what's a crop? if you use the wide interpretation of something planted and harvested (even just harvested from the wild) as a crop, then it should belong. A food crop is more specific, I am harvesting crops right now - seeds, they are not for eating but planting, but they are still a crop. Hardyplants 22:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've substitited Category:Food crops as the subcategory for Category:Edible plants instead of the broader category Category:Crops. --Melburnian 05:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I had that same idea at dinner tonight. Thanks! Murderbike 06:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

MCB Collaboration of the Month

Three plant-related articles are currently nominated for Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Collaboration of the Month. These include cell wall, chlorophyll, and Arabidopsis thaliana (OK, so I nominated the last two, but they're still MCB topics). All three of these articles are Top priority for WP:PLANTS, so keep an eye out in case one of these articles is selected. --EncycloPetey 01:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we have something similar here? I've signed all of them, but I consider Cell wall the most important. Aelwyn 07:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We could try something like that, but I'd recommend something simple to start with. That way, if we don't get a lot of participation, then we haven't wasted lots of effort setting it up. --EncycloPetey 12:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Chelone glabra (and other taxonomically challenged stubs)

I'd like to start a stub for Chelone glabra (one of several dozen plants that are on the WV Bloom Clock but have no articles here), but I'm not sure what family it's in now (apparently Scrophulariaceae is no more?). I'll probably have similar problems with a number of other articles because of the rampant changes in taxonomy over the past few years as well, so would a taxonomically-up-to-date editor be willing to follow my stub creations over the next few months to correct my antiquated naming :-)? --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 11:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I can do that if you post a link to your stubs in my talk page (is there an automated way to keep track of your edits?), but you could also check it yourself at this page. Bye! Aelwyn 12:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Aelwyn, you can put User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult on your watchlist. SB_Johnny's articles will show up there. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks :). I realized after the first posting that there will be a lot of other issues regarding now-broken-up genera like Aster, Polygonum, and Chrysanthemum as well. There's also a couple plants logged from Mexico that I couldn't find anything at all about (the binomials might have typos or be using unorthodox taxonomy). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 13:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Aster is the camel that has broken my back on new names, now that most of the North American species have been moved to hideously unpronounceable genra (let alone spelling them) I have decided to change my philosophy about common names from: "learn the scientific names they are consistent and every can look them up and know what plant you are talking about"....now its "learn the common names- at least they do not change". Has there been any conses on Chrysanthemum yet...that one has been bouncing around a lot in hort, not even the trade gernals are consistent yet. I have pics for the turtle heads and scans of their seeds if you have a place for them. Hardyplants 21:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

<*grin*> Yeah, I get the feeling that whoever split up Aster had a grudge against Americans and their plants :)... nice thing about wikis is that we can just use redirects for the plain-spoken to find what they're looking for. As a rank and file commonist, I can only say that if you have pix you're willing to share, please share them! You never know when somone might need it. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 22:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Chemical issue in Aesculus hippocastanum

There seems to be a great deal of confusion about the horse chestnut and certain bioactive/toxic chemicals extracted from it. One is called aesculin; the other aescin. The literature tends to speak of these as two different things, but it's unclear to me whether they are two destinct checmicals or whether one is a class of related chemicals, possibly including the other. I've made a stab at clarifying, but someone who knows the material ought to review it. I'd also suggest looking at the accompanying image which doesn't seem well-explained in the text. Mangoe 16:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Glucoside article says Aesculin is C₂₁H₂₄O₁₃ (but doesn't give a structure) and [2] says that aescin (aka escin) is C₅₅H₈₆O₂₄ (and does provide a structure). So unless these are wrong/misleading, two different compounds (each one a specific compound). I don't really know where to go to look up chemical structures - perhaps PubChem but I didn't play around with that (you could always ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals). The Wikipedia article on Aesculin is missing a Template:Chembox - adding one (and writing a stub for aescin) would be one place to start. Kingdon 17:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

For the chemical structure of aesculin : see [3] ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJan (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Algae taxonomies from NCBI

How good are taxonomies for algae species from NCBI? I did not realize when she posted that User:WillowW was using NCBI for her taxonomies, but this appears to be the case. NCBI is not a taxonomic site, and even comes with a disclaimer to this effect--something I just learned (the disclaimer, I knew it wasn't a taxonomic site). KP Botany 06:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume you don't want the general deficiencies of NCBI Taxonomy described. Algaebase seems a promising source, but there's also ITIS and Systema Naturae 2000. (Algaebase has several orders not present in NCBI, reflecting, I presume, recent splits. I haven't dug deep enough to find out how it compares for genere, but you could point User:WillowW at these sites. Lavateraguy 08:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, just pointing WillowW in the correct direction. I do know that NCBI is generally not used for taxonomy, period. Both Algaebase and ITIS have problems, but using data from them when it is referenced to the site is appropriate. I'm still not sure that she's using NCBI for the taxonomy, but I've asked her. KP Botany 16:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don;t know of any source for the currently preferred higher-order nomenclature, but the Index Nominum Algarum is useful for nomenclatorial research, though it does not tell you what the currently preferred name is. Its compiler (Paul Silva) is one of the world's leading experts in phycology. --EncycloPetey 14:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Petey, higher-order in the "algae," whatsoever they are, is pretty dangerous to even attempt. I'll probably use Lee for it though--I think that's the text Professor Silva used to use at Cal. Prof. Silva does seaweeds, mostly, as far as I know, and I think that's what WillowW means by "algae," so I'll look that over to see if it is useful. KP Botany 16:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm really glad that we're having this discussion, and I do hope to be pointed in the right direction. I'm realllllly busy today, though, so my replies may be spotty; I'm turning three bushels of tomatoes from my garden into tomato sauce and canning it, plus I have several people coming by my home to pick up divisions from various plants in my garden.

Let me bring everyone up to speed on what taxonomy articles I've written and why. Back in February, I was trying cheer up User:Worldtraveller with a game making stubs for missing encyclopedia articles starting with the letter "D". One of those, Dasycladales, seemed really interesting to me; I also noticed that Wikipedia is woefully short of taxonomy articles, having roughly 20% of known taxa down to species and was missing the entire domain of Archaea with perhaps five exceptions. I decided to make stubs for some of those and did a test run on the Archaea, down to the level of genus. It seemed to be well-received although, honestly, there seemed to be not much enthusiasm from the Tree of Life WikiProject. People from Molecular and Cellular Biology were much more helpful, especially TimVickers and David D., and with their encouragement, I went on to do the Rhodobacterales. After that, I returned to the Dasycladales, and did all the Chlorophyta down to the level of genus; then, with EncycloPetey's encouragement, I did all the Desmids down to the level of genus. I've never touched articles that already existed, however; I only create stubs for taxa that haven't existed hitherto.

In all the algal articles, I referenced the NCBI database, but provided references to the other databases that have been named above. For that, I made templates such as {{Algae databases}}, {{Taxonomic references}} and {{Taxonomic links}}. Interested Wikipedians who wish to improve the stub have only to click on those links.

I have been aware all along of the NCBI disclaimer; however, I have found it to be adequate, with occasional minor corrections, for a referenced initial stub. I recognize that the NCBI is not authoritative, but it is usually correct in my experience, and it provides over 18,000 citations to the literature which I have been incorporating into my articles. That won't be apparent in the algal articles, which are not well-represented in the NCBI's citation database, but it's more apparent in the bacterial and archaeal pages.

I'll be happy to incorporate other databases, if people feel strongly about it and if they are able to provide a file in ASCII format that I can mine for the appropriate data. Otherwise, people are free to improve the stub themselves. Willow 18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. One solution might be to tag my articles with a banner saying that the taxonomy was taken from the NCBI database and therefore might be incorrect. Kind of like the {{Topheavy}} tag. If that seems like the best solution to everyone, I would volunteer to do that, or we could have a bot such as the BotanyBot do it. Just a suggestion, Willow 18:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the problem is just in using NCBI as a source for taxonomy, particularly for algal taxa--it simply is not designed to be used as a taxonomic reference, and should not be used as such on a large scale. That doesn't mean it isn't okay now and then to pull information for an article and include it with a disclaimer, but no way should an entire taxon be pulled from NCBI with its taxonomy. We should just ask BotanyBot for whatever corrections are necessary, unless you can script the corrections, readily. "Usually correct" as opposed to "authoritative" is sufficient reason to not use something as a source for Wikipedia articles, although sometimes, on an individual basis this can be dealt with with disclaimers within the article. KP Botany 22:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if any of the ones suggested above are in ASCII file format. KP Botany 22:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PS I added some authorities and did a bit of a rewording. The articles are generally well-done stubs, though. KP Botany 23:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

BotanyBot is currently getting approval from the WP:BOT people to fix things like taxonomy by find/replace functions in large lists. In fact, I just completed a trial at the requests for approval page (initially to correct Polbot errors), so I should be able to begin those kinds of edits soon. If you cobble together a list of articles and the find/replace changes that need to occur on them, I can definitely run it in the near future. --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are we adding articles using NCBI taxonomy? I don't understand the purpose in creating new articles that come with the disclaimer they may be inaccurate. Are these species not available elsewhere with accurate taxonomies, or sites that are taxonomic in nature? KP Botany 19:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The {{NCBI taxonomy}} tag is intended to help with the cleanup of earlier articles, collected at Category:Articles with NCBI taxonomy. Willow 21:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So you'r not adding articles using NCBI taxonomy, just tagging older ones? I asked the question so specifically because I wanted to be clear about what is going on. Thanks. KP Botany 02:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Collaboration

I would like help copy editing and expanding the work I've done on the Plant physiology article (which was a stub). In theory, all our project article collaboration discussion should happen on the Collaboration page, but that page has been little used in the past. If you don't have Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Collaboration on your Watchlist, please consider adding it now. --EncycloPetey 20:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources for history of nomenclature?

Does anyone know where I can find out about the history of botanical nomenclature? e.g. I would like to know at what point priority of publication became the guiding principle; when a procedure for conserved names was introduced, and how it has evolved over time; and other such esoterica. Hesperian 13:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I haven't seen a copy myself, I'll bet you could find that information in Plant Systematics: A Half-century of Progress (1950-2000) and Future Challenges, edited by Tod F. Stuessy, Elvira Hörandl, & Veronika Mayer. The book is published and offered for sale by the IAPT. The nomenclature course I took in college didn't use a textbook other than the Code. You can get the text of the ICBN on-line (Tokyo, St. Louis, & Vienna codes), but the relevant sections generally do not give dates at which new provisions were enacted.

You might also try An Introduction to Plant Taxonomy (1955) by George H. M. Lawrence. Because of its early date, the chapter on nomenclature (pp. 88-97) gives more detailed early history than more recent books, though still briefly since it is just one chapter. For instance, it describes the ideological split between the Europeans and the Americans over the international code during the years from 1905 to 1930. --EncycloPetey 14:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, there was a chapter on this in Singh, but I returned the book... Circeus 14:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jones, Samuel B., and Arlene E. Luchsinger. 1979. Plant systematics. McGraw-Hill series in organismic biology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Has a chapter on historical background of classification, pages 7 to 24. The next chapter is most likly what you want to look at Covering the history of plant nomenclature. it syas Botanical Congresses were held in 1892, 1905, 1907, qnd 1910 to work out internatianls accepted rules for naming, it recommends two books for those that want a detailed history- listing: Lawrence 1951, and Smith 1957.(see note above) Hardyplants 14:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not very familiar with it, someone was working on a Nomenclatural citations book on Wikibooks a while back. It might have some historical discussions. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 15:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, all! Hesperian 00:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most of the above appear to be histories of systematics (i.e. taxonomy) rather than nomenclature. Nonetheless you have all been a great help in clarifying exactly what it is I'm looking for. I appear to have found it (or at least a good start of it) in Nicolson, Dan H. (1991). "A History of Botanical Nomenclature". Ann. Missouri. Bot. Gard. 78: 33–56.. Hesperian 00:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad to here that you found what you needed, is there some type of governing body for nomenclature use? I have notice that the definitions of the words change over time, while looking at different usage over the last 130 years. may be usage is driven by the word usage in important published papers and books. Hardyplants 01:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sago

Hi guys - good work on the Top Stubs BTW :-) I've just come across Sago - which looks like it could do with some input from this Project. At the moment that article is mostly about how to make sago starch, there's not much about the tree - but there's no separate Metroxylon sagu article. Correct that - I've just created it as a redirect. :-) I know there's lots of precedents for having separate articles for the product/fruit and the plant, but since we don't have one already I figure that in this case it's probably better to just have one article and splinter it if it gets too big. The genus article at Metroxylon is worse than stubby - it doesn't even mention M. sagu, although perhaps there's a good reason for that? But as a major tropical crop, this is definitely an important area to cover - over to you lot.... FlagSteward 21:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The absence of M. sagu from Metroxylon is because the latter was created by User:Polbot from the Red Data List - Sago, obviously, isn't endangered. I've gone and added a link. Lavateraguy 22:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've started a separate article on Metroxylon sagu - MPF 10:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Acer saccharum, wording and conservation status

There's some idiotic disputing going on at Acer saccharum regarding conservation status and not whether or which common name to mention, but what formulation to use to do it. Input would be greatly appreciated. Circeus 16:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll certainly agree with "idiotic". Comments on the talk page. Thanks for bringing it up here rather than just continuing the edit war. Kingdon 22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Betalain citation needed

cross-posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Carnivorous plants

I've just created an article on betalains. I remember at a one meeting of the BSA (either the one in Ames or the one in Seattle) hearing that the Droseraceae and Nepenthaceae were in the same clade with the Caryophyllales. I think it was at the same meeting that I first heard betalains had been found in these carnivorous plants. However, I am having trouble finding a journal citation. Can someone help? --EncycloPetey 06:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of information about betalain and the Caryophyllales in Molecular phylogenetics of the Caryophyllales with an extensive cited literature. The information you seek is probably somewhere there. JoJan 08:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I checked that article. It does cover phylogenetic relations, but still holds that betalains are restricted to the 10 families mentioned by Cronquist. --EncycloPetey 14:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Douglas-fir

You probably want to check this and related page moves. I'm pretty sure it's wrong but I won't revert because I don't know the naming conventions by heart and defer to your treefulness. :) Katr67 00:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

MPF, I'm not going to fight the tide on hyphenating the term "Douglas fir," but I will remind you that the average person seeing the term "Douglas-fir" will not recognize the hyphen as an indication that the tree is not a true fir, but will think it's a typo or an attempt to make the reader pronounce the term incorrectly (with the stress on the first word). Only the community that decided to hyphenate the term knows why the hyphen is there; it's lost on the rest of us. There are plenty of non-hyphenated terms in English that contain technically inaccurate words--I wish I could think of one now!--whose meanings are made clear by context. No matter how deeply institutionalized this hyphen may be in publications, it is still unnecessary and, from a technical English language standpoint, incorrect. No good English teacher would spare "Douglas-fir" or "Poison-oak" the red pen. I work for a government agency, and I would write very badly indeed if I used their official publications as a vocabulary guide instead of the dictionary. I'm not trying to give you a hard time--I just didn't want you to think I made those changes on a whim. -Eric ^(talk) 14:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No good science teacher would allow you to use a dictionary as a reference to the name, even a common name, of a taxon, over a scientific source. KP Botany 17:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Flora of North America hyphenates the name. --EncycloPetey 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The number of people who write or say something a certain way does not necessarily determine what is correct. You can listen to business people and American government representatives use the word "impact" in place of "affect" all day long and that still doesn't make it right. Plenty of people in the nuclear industry and in the military pronounce "nuclear" "new-kew-lur"—it still ain't right. -Eric ^(talk) 17:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Very true. No amount of people calling it 'Douglas Fir' will change it from a Pseudotsuga to an Abies, however much they might think it will - MPF 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

MPF, you know I'm not lobbying to change a scientific name. I'm just saying it looks like some people in the botany community got into the habit of hyphenating some plant names in a way that English does not typically use hyphens--maybe as a wink and a nod to each other that they know the common name is technically deceptive--and then the habit became institutionalized in some botany publications. Plenty of organisms have compound common names that include a technically inaccurate name without needing a hyphen to "clarify" their meanings; Spanish moss, prairie dog, sea lion, and sea lettuce are a few examples. Sorry to be adding to the 'new message' notices... -Eric ^(talk) 19:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants for wider discussion. For now I'll just say that I don't like the hyphenation and this kind of argument is one reason why I support placing plant articles under the somewhat more objective botanical rather than the extremely subjective common names. But contrary to claims, there is no consensus among botanists and other plant professionals that this is the one proper or correct way to represent common names and as Eric notes, the vast majority of visitors to Wikipedia will find the hyphenation quite odd. "Poison-ivy" is one of the most egregious offenders that continues to grate on me. (BTW I just looked in my copy of Heywood's "Flowering Plants of the World" and "poison ivy" is not hyphenated; nor are "African violet" or "silk oak"; and I'm just waiting for somebody to use "Norfolk Island-Pine"!) MrDarwin 17:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick check of a couple of fairly influential references reveals that both the New Royal Horticultural Society Dictionary of Gardening and Hortus Third (also a horticultural reference, but prepared by botanists at Cornell University) use "Douglas fir" without hyphenation. I also checked Cronquist (1981) and he also does not use hyphenation in such names as "poison ivy" and "African violet". So I guess my question is, whose lead are we following on this, why are we following it, and where are these guidelines spelled out? MrDarwin 17:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Whose lead? The United States Government, through its agencies the United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Forest Service. And, as already pointed out above, the Flora of North America. BTW, yes, please do remove it from here, I'm getting sick of all those orange 'you have new messages' notifiers!! - MPF 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The foregoing discussion was copied from User talk:MPF at the suggestion of MrDarwin (above). --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It was not commonly done in 1981, and Cronquist is not a common names expert. Horticultural resources tend to stick with older names, even older scientific names, rather than update to newer names. KP Botany 23:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, now we have "common name experts"? Who are these people, and where do they get their expertise? What makes one a more authoritative "expert" over another? "Common names" of plants are the names that people, particularly non-botanists, employ in place of botanical or "scientific" names in ordinary usage--and in such usage, hyphenation is exceedingly rare. MrDarwin 14:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The hyphens cause more problems than they supposedly fix. Any way, I looked threw my Botany text books and none of theme have hyphens for Douglas fir. The 6 Hort books I looked at do not do it ether, thought one has it spelled as one word Douglasfir. I do not have any forestry texts- so maybe this is something they do. Hardyplants 23:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I care on this one either way. I can see arguments for and against. My two cents, though... I took a class on Forest Ecology of the Pacific Northwest and all references I was given maintained the hyphen, including my copy of Pojar & MacKinnon's Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast (1994), produced by the British Columbia Forest Service. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My books (Trees of North America ; Trees of Britain and Europe) all use a hyphen in such cases. Even the USDA Forest Service in its "Silvics of North America" uses the common name Douglas-fir with a hyphen [4]. But as MrDarwin has shown, equal strong arguments can be used for the spelling Douglas fir. I'm afraid this discussion will lead us nowhere. JoJan 08:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

After taking a short look at what is on the net, I found sites that use all three spellings "Douglas-fir", "Douglas fir" and "Douglasfir" But it looks like the tide is turning in favor of Douglas-fir. It looks like this is going to be one of those issues that we keep coming back to every once in a while. Hardyplants 09:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to complicate things further, what about bigcone spruce (or is it bigcone-spruce), the other member of Pseudotsuga?--Curtis Clark 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Google gets 9,260 hits for "bigcone douglas fir" and 655 for "bigcone spruce" (and similar results with hyphens; I'm not sure how the hyphen affects google). I don't have handy field guides and other references for the western US (or mexico or asia, where the 3 other Pseudotsuga species are). But based on a preliminary look, it seems like "bigcone spruce" has largely died out, the same way that scotch fir has mostly been replaced by the taxonomically correct scotch pine. Oh, as for the hyphens, I doubt we'll ever really resolve that one (I can see arguments for both sides, and clearly there are strong opinions on both sides). Kingdon 15:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And even more by the etymologically correct Scots Pine - 'scotch' is insulting to Scots in this context and should not be used (much as 'nigger' is to Africans, or 'jap' to Japanese, and for much the same reasons). - MPF 22:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And other common names have been deprecated for similar reasons, such as "digger pine" for Pinus sabiniana and "niggerheads" for Echinocactus polycephalus. But common names are just that—common. They are the pauper, not the prince; downstairs rather than upstairs. I've said it before and I'll say it again—Wikipedia should be descriptive, not prescriptive. That includes listing all common names in wide use or of historical significance. And Douglas-fir should be moved to Pseudotsuga.--Curtis Clark 16:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Curtis, it's not just you saying it, it's official Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, describing corporate entities such as cities and states by the names by which they describe themselves (or by the English-language equivalent). Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used.

And from Wikipedia:Naming conflict:

Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing POVs. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

and

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is. [emphasis in the original]

Editors need to be reminded of this, over and over. MrDarwin 20:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the coffee, guys--I don't know why we all didn't think of this before. The current redirects (Pseudotsuga and Douglas fir redirecting to Douglas-fir) should be changed so that Douglas fir and Douglas-fir redirect to Pseudotsuga. Yes? I don't want to be the one to do it, though--I'm still bruised from having all my hard work reverted (I de-hyphenated all the Pseudotsuga species' articles--titles and body--as well as "Poison-oak" and "Poison-ivy"). -Eric ^(talk) 21:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's another arbitrary approach to evaluating "commonness": Of 66 books in books.google published in 2006 and 2007 that have "douglas fir pseudotsuga", with an optional hyphen betwen Douglas and Fir, and optional punctuation like a "(" or "," before Pseudotsuga, 19 used a hyphen, 41 did not, and 6 restricted access to the relevant page. I included psuedotsuga as it seems authors disproportionately used "Douglas Fir" without a hyphen in non-botanical or non-scientific contexts, as in the many woodworking/construction references. And I limited it to 2006-2007 because I was counting them up by hand, although a larger sample could be tallied by pasting 100-per-page results into MS Word or something. -Agyle 23:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the vast majority of people and references, in print and online, do not hyphenate such names. Hyphenation is used by a very narrow and specialized group who are very much in the minority, as any Google search will show. But what makes field guide or flora writers the authorities or "experts" on common names any more than ethnobotanists, horticulturists, woodworkers, linguists or dictionary compilers? All of these people (except maybe the last group) actually use these names and as has already been pointed out, Wikipedia describes rather than prescribes usage. (And before another person points out that a U.S. government agency like the USDA hypenates, do we really want to consider government agencies that classify tomatoes as vegetables and carrots as fruits to be the authorities for common names?) MrDarwin 14:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

25,000 and counting

Congratulations, all. We've made it past the 25,000 mark on the number of articles within our scope! 25,000 down, so much more to be done. --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Birthday flowers?

I note that Gertrude Jobes' book Dictionary of Mythology Folklore and Symbols includes information on different birthday flowers for each day of the year, with a little info on the supposed significance of each flower. Do the members of this group think that there would be sufficient importance to this to merit an article? John Carter 16:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends on whether this is more widespread than just one book, I suppose (either in terms of others writing about it, or applying it). Also see articles like Language of flowers (and we might have others, but I'm not sure). Kingdon 16:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I regret to say I have no way of knowing whether it is mentioned by others, or even, according to the text, what tradition it's based on. The text doesn't say one way or another. I think I'm going to start the Birthday flowers article, listing the names of the plants and the meaning ascribed to them, and inserting their symbolic meaning, and let your project and the mythology project know about it. Those two groups might know best how to proceed from there. And, as a member of that other group, I'll look for additional references in the various available references and try to find some more substantiation. John Carter 16:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't find a whole lot, other than (a) florists clearly see birthday flowers as a sales opportunity (whether this means picking a different flower for each day of the year is not as clear, and whether florists invented the whole thing is also not evident - it is hard to do much google searching when every florist web site has the phrase "birthday flowers" on it), (b) a book review of the Jobes at [5], (c) a certain amount of scholarly literature on "fakelore" or "folklure" (search for those words on google scholar for example), which may or may not discuss birthday flowers (I was just browsing abstracts and such, not full text). Birthday flowers do seem to be widely enough discussed that they warrant an article, though, but it would be nice if someone can dig up a bit more on where the custom originated, how widely practiced it is, etc. Anyway, the mythology folks can perhaps help more than we can on such matters. For WP:PLANTS purposes, it is more just a question of whether we can correctly identify the flowers mentioned. Might serve as an interesting exercise to see whether we have articles for most of the commonly sold/cultivated flowers. Kingdon 17:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ebenezer Brewer mentions a bit about it, not sure where. Perhaps in one of the many editions of Phrase and Fable, or in his other works. Cygnis insignis 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Books.google returns a 1913 American book with a one-per-month birthday flowers list. A 1921 book of etiquette says to give the birthday flower, whichever it is, prominence at the party. Several "birthday flower" and "birthday flowers" results, sometimes referring to flowers given on birthdays, but often times to specific flower species for a given month or date. In this 1878 story a character says "the orange-blossom was her birthday flower; for fifty years I have never failed to gather her a bouquet of them on her birthday." (In references like that, it's not always said why a species is a person's birthday flower; maybe it went by date, month, or was somehow assigned/chosen in childhood). An 1883 ad for a British book called "Birthday Flowers: Their Language and Legends," with color illustrations for every day of the year, includes in its length description: "This sumptuous and elegant Birthday Book is the first in which our floral treasures have been laid under really effective contribution." The earliest mention of the book in an 1875 ad; it seems tied in with the Victorian-era Language of Flowers. -Agyle 23:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, much more to the point than anything I found. Kingdon 12:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Identification of trees of the United States

Shouldn't this be moved to Wikibooks? It looks more like an embryonic field guide than an entry for an encyclopedia. --EncycloPetey 22:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but might not be worked on though, as there are not a lot of "plant people" on wb as there are on wp. The bloom clock on wv is pretty much a dichotomous key as well (in fact the "key" part of it will eventually be imported to wikibooks), and wikibooks could make similar use of the DynamicPageList extension if someone wanted to work on it (DPL is a category-sorting extension that apparently will never be permitted on wikipedia due to the server load it entails, but it could be set to find, e.g., all plants with simple leaves, opposite leaves, smooth above, hairy beneath, 10 stamens, etc). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 11:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, for accuracy it should be moved to Identification of trees of the eastern United States.--Curtis Clark 14:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Established or recent scientific name?

In Lavatera arborea, there's a minor question (Talk:Lavatera_arborea) of whether to use what seems to be a fairly recently approved name change, Malva dendromorpha, for the article title, despite the older scientific name being better known. ITIS lists the old name, GRIN lists the new name. It's really not that important, as redirects direct a reader to the article either way, and both names are mentioned within the article. Just wondering if there's a generally accepted approach. -Agyle 21:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm cautious about the comment about the name being "approved". Assuming the name Lavatera arborea is a validly published name and is correctly associated with this taxon, it can be used for this taxon. Whether it should be used, or another name used in its place, is a matter of taxonomic opinion but there is no taxonomic gestapo who will hunt you down and force you to use a new name. Not being familiar with this group I don't know what the details are, but from the discussion page for this species it sounds like it is still a bit taxonomically unsettled. In a case like this I would recommend a conservative "wait and see" approach; for now leave it under the most familiar name, with a note in the article about recent taxonomic or nomenclatural changes. The article can always be re-edited later, if one or another new name becomes widely accepted as "correct". (Which reminds me, I need to go back and re-edit some articles on which I used a conservative approach about a year ago, that are due to be updated...) MrDarwin 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The exception to this would be a name "approved" in the code itself for some reason. KP Botany 22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm a plant layperson, and appreciate the explanation. The issue seems settled then for the time being. I thought ITIS, GRIN and others reflected an authoritative naming system like the ICBN's, but on further reading, they seem to be competing, arbitrary systems of their own creation. KP Botany, by "the code," do you mean the ICBN's "Code of Nomenclature?" If so, do you mean that their Code of Nomenclature should be the authority Wikipedia titling, or only that using the word "approved" would be reasonable if the ICBN approved it in their code? -Agyle 19:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the ICBN doesn't deal with all names, but sometimes they publish rules on controversies. In this case, what they go with is what we should use. But there are thousands of other difficulties in plant taxon names that aren't dealt with in the code, in which case we should probably go with the authority in the field, which will often be what some of the taxonomic databases have. KP Botany 01:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agyle, ICBN is a set of rules for how to name plants. Every systematic botanist on the planet follows it, and so do we. For the most part, it does not list valid names - it only defines the rules.

IBIS, GRIN, etc, are plant databases. They refer to plants by names. These names accord with the ICBN rules, in general. Where IBIS, GRIN, etc, provide different names for the same plant, there is either an error, or a difference in opinion on the systematics (e.g. the circumscription) of the plant. Hesperian 02:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)