Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

Ericales in NL wikipedia

Hi, Teun Spaans! I noticed you put some information in the Nederlands article. Could you please take a look and add things I missed to the English one. Thank you! Iorsh 07:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I added one sentence, you got most info already. This sentence came from the german wiki. And your english is excellent, probably better than mine. See also Talk:Poales. TeunSpaans 21:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Example

I'm trying to upgrade Ragwort to an example article, as asked by User:Phyzome. I am still busy I dont know if I'll be able to complete it this weekend. TeunSpaans 09:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to expand the Ragwort so that more aspects are described. I would welcome your comments. TeunSpaans 09:26, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The ragwort example does not have a Taxobox_species_entry, which the taxobox for a species section suggests the right way to do it.

Orders of flowering plants

I'm working on descriptions of the orders of flowering plants. The scope of the work includes only the orders recognized by the APG II. Described so far:

Laurales, Liliales, Alismatales, Poales, Ericales, Asterales, Geraniales, Cucurbitales, Malvales.

Since my English is far from being perfect, everybody is welcome to read and correct the articles. Iorsh 11:48, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Add references to template

I would like to see a references category added to the template.

I agree. An article without references doesn't look professional. Iorsh 23:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added a references section. User:nereocystis

Food vs Poison

There is a section called Food. The title doesn't seem quite right for poisonous plants. The ragwort example uses "Food: don't". The difference between food and medicine may be slight at times. I assume that psychoactive drugs should be mentioned under medicine. I don't have a better title than food, but I sort of think that I would prefer a better title.

I think the section names in the template are merely a recommendation about what should be covered. It is quite clear, that the person who knows a specific plant and writes about it, will sometimes choose to rename the section title or omit it altogether due to lack of information, or perhaps add new sections in addition to these recommended. Iorsh 12:41, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Additional section names sometimes make sense, but I would prefer to have almost all section names, and have experts add subsections when needed. iAs an author, it removes a need for creative labeling. As a user, I know where to look for a piece of information.

I intended the sections of the temlate as a reminderd of the several aspects of plants. If for a plant a section is inappropriate, one can either omit the section or list it with a sentence like "not applicable". Listing it is not applicable does show that one has thought of it, and tells more than omitting it.

When you have a better name for a section, please add it to the template. Drugs might be applicable for some species, for instance those in the papaver genus. I added the sections to show the wide variety of aspects. Adding the different sections will help to give artcivcles a wirder scope and make them more interesting. TeunSpaans 17:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Help wanted for correct terms

Being personnally most familiar with French botanical terms, I'd greatly appreciate if some people could watch over the articles I create (Which will be listed here upon completion) for correct descriptive terms and factual accuracy. --Circeus 16:32, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Mouse-eared hawkweed
• Mullein
• Common mullein
• Orange hawkweed
• Green false hellebore

Forgotten plant stubs

It seems obvious that many plant stubs have been forgotten in the Biology stubs due to not changing {{biosci-stub}} to {{plant-stub}}. I will be looking further into this and try to switch a few to animal and plant stubs (I already found Mulleins, Flaxes and there are certainly more)--Circeus 19:50, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed Alkanet to {{plant-stub}} from {{biosci-stub}}. Chilepine 22:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Consensus

Me again! I wanted to know whether we had a sort of consensus for use of subdivisions (particularly units below the family) and as of whether or not the common name of the plant discussed in an article should be systematically capitalized (as was done by User:JoJan in [edit]).--Circeus 00:11, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Other questions I'd like to have opinions about include:

Should genus latin names redirecting to a single plant be systematically deleted?

Why would you want to delete the genus? Please give an example and explain the reason? Nereocystis 22:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't remember on the spot the case I had found, unfortunately. Will get back on you if I find others. Circeus 23:52, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

It seems common practice to redirect genus names to plant names for genera wih only 1 species. Personally I oppose the usage of redirects of genus to plant simply because we havent described more than 1 species from a genus. In such a case, I'd prefer a stub like xxx is a genus of plants in the family yyy. The only species described on this wiki is zzz. TeunSpaans 17:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should the template include default categories, such as "family or order", "plants" and possibly "herbs"?

--Circeus 18:53, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Auto-categorization

I have made an Auto-categorization request for sub-sorting plants into ordoes and family. Support would be appreciated. Circeus 01:38, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Trichocereus vs Echinopsis

Hi, i have some questions about cacti that hopefully someone can help me with- It is my understanding that the genus Trichocereus has been absorbed into Echinopsis, and the Trichocereus page redirects to Echinopsis; yet both are listed as genuses (geni?) genera (there it is . . .) on the cactus page. the Echinopsis page is lacking links to Trichocereus species such as San Pedro (Trichocereus/Echinopsis pachanoi), and the san pedro page still uses the genus Trichocereus. So, my questions- should the San Pedro page be edited to conform to the proper genus, should new species i'm about to add (eg peruvianus) be called Echinopsis, and should San Pedro and any new ones i add be placed with links on the Echinopsis page? Don't know if you will have an answer, but i posted this on the cactus talk page with no response and I don't want to start making such edits on pages under this project's jurisdiction without knowing my edits are proper. thanks. --Heah 01:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not feel competent to judge this matter for content. But if you feel sure of it, please go ahead. TeunSpaans 17:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I checked on apg2 by going to http://delta-intkey.com/angio/www/cactacea.htm, and indeed the genus has been moved from cacataceae under apg2. So i'll do some updates. TeunSpaans 17:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The lists of genera in The families of flowering plants shouldn't be regarded as authoritative or up-to-date. Only minor maintenance has been carried out recently, as the botanical author (Watson) is now retired. Information about the APG classification relates to the 1998 version, as is stated in the descriptions. You might do better with a Google search. Mike Dallwitz 1 July 2005 11:07 (UTC)

You are right about The families of flowering plants, I usually also check other apg2 sites, actually delta-intkey is one of my least favourite references ;-) TeunSpaans 12:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Carex identifications

I am of little use for the genus Carex, and happened to take a few pictures of plants belonging to it on a trip at Lac-Mégantic, near the Quebec/Vermont border. I'd appreciate help identifying the species on these pictures. The two first are the same specimen, taken in a forest, the others in a field, the third might be Carex grayi, but I'm not sure.

• Image:Carex Circeus1.jpg
• Image:Carex Circeus2.jpg
• Image:Carex ssp 1.jpg
• Image:Carex ssp 2.jpg

Circeus 15:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of poaceae, you might upload them at commons.wikimedia.org and ask there. Usually there is slightly more comment there than here. TeunSpaans 05:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Acturally, that would be cyperaceae, AFAIK. And the pictures are at commons. Circeus 14:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

What I meant is that you ask the question at commons:Category:Unidentified_plants TeunSpaans 20:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (and you are right about Cyperaceae, of course, I've ignored them together with the grasses ;-) )

Genus: Acer

I think Acer (genus) may need an article. Acer is a disambiguation page, with about 8 articles about the genus Acer directed there. Unfortunatley there isn't an article about Acer (genus), should there be? --Commander Keane 04:20, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

The simplest solution is to either redirect Acer (genus) to maple or to move maple to acer (genus). I'd tend toward the first. Circeus 14:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Quick overlook

Can someone have a look at Interrupted fern, Blue-bead lily and Golden clover for prose and vocabulary? Thanks in advance. Circeus 22:23, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Curtis Clark 00:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Same for Common Milkweed. Circeus 19:05, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

"Golden clover" done and moved to its usual name, Large Hop Trefoil. Point to make here: beware of the USDA plants database in particular, which is hopelessly bad at getting the common names of European plants completely wrong. So much so, that I'd recommend avoiding it completely when dealing with European, Asian, etc., species. And also when writing about European and Asian plants, their status as cultivated introductions in North America is a minor factoid to be placed low in the article, not taking precedence over their status as native plants in their homeland (see e.g. Large Hop Trefoil - my edits. When citing references and links for European plants, please look for British/European references, not American ones, which come with an American POV not suitable for non-American species. - MPF 00:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate your points about common names, and in this case I have no disagreement, I think it's important to remember that (1) introduced plants can be ecological dominants, under new names, in their adopted lands, and (2) there are plants (sorry, none come immediately to mind, unless you count Salsola pestifer) that are much more common and well-known in their adopted ranges than in their native lands. Both of these things are reasons that organisms should be listed by their scientific names. Unfortunately, that is not Wikipedia policy. --Curtis Clark 03:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Curtis - Agreed there are a few exceptional cases, but they are rare. I also agree that organisms (plants in particular) should really be under scientific names, I've moved plenty of plant pages to sci names myself for exactly that sort of reason (including Salsola) - there's been some discussion on this at the parent talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, there's a strong feeling there that where common names cause the slightest confusion, move to the scientific, but it is not a full consensus, unfortunately. - MPF 09:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I rarely can get actual european sources, at least for the time being. That is another of the reasons I want to have other people review what I write (I addition to language issues). Soon I'm entering Uni and should be able to get better material for these flora articles. I'll try to limit myself to native american plants in the meantime (like the other were, I only wrote Golden Clover because I happened to have a picture of the plant and it didn't already exist). Circeus 00:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Circeus - there's some available on the web (one option is to put the sci name in google advanced search and limit the search to .uk or .fr etc, domains); alternatively, drop me a query on my talk page. Hope you enjoy uni! - MPF 09:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Headers

Some of the pages I've seen (I presume following the Ragwort example) look awful, because they have far too many double-bold (==Header==) headers. It doesn't look good with every two- or three- line paragraph having a separate large underlined header. Please keep to three or fewer headers, unless the page is a very long one! (more than three or four full screen heights, e.g. apple). Some of the headers used are pretty frightful too, notably "Distribution and multiplication" and "Botanical properties" - they look really yucky in everyday English.

Thanks! - MPF 00:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a point I've been worried myself, and I am guilty of producing too much headers, though I'm trying to refrain from that. Maybe just "description" and "distribution" would be more than enough, with multiplication strategies handled in "ecological aspects"?. I'm not even sure "botanical properties" makes any actual sense. Feel free to edit the Plant species template. Circeus 13:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Will do, might add some suggestions in <!-- --> tags too; I'll hold fire for a day or two though in case others want to comment too - MPF 13:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I ended up changing the headers today. Might as well add a ful taxobox too instead of a link. Circeus 15:52, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Fungi

Could we create a WikiProject Fungi or WikiProject Mushroom? I haven't seen one, and I'm willing to participate. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I support such that idea. The best way to go around with it is create an empty wikiproject page (For an empty template look here, look up some people who have contributed to fungii on the english wiki and invite them. Oh, and please do add it to Wikipedia:List_of_WikiProjects. TeunSpaans 18:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help out with this too. It looks like no action has been taken on this since the original request, but the Fungi need a whole lot of work. Is anyone else interested in a Fungi WikiProject? Mycota 22:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

as usual...

If someone could check at Broadleaf arrowhead. Circeus 15:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Stub proposals

This seems a good place to mention that the Stub sorting project is proposing two new subcategory stubs to break up the 8 page monster listing under Category:Plant stubs. Specifically, I've proposed {{succulent-stub}} and {{grass-stub}}. If you have an opinion in the matter, just post it on the Stub proposal page under the appropriate header. -- EncycloPetey 16:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hyphenated plant species names

This is a controversial topic. Is it poison-ivy or poison ivy, Osage-orange or Osage orange? I think we need a guideline on this. There is already discussion in Talk:Poison ivy and Talk:Toxicodendron#Hyphenation. The discussion should be gathered here.

The common usage is usually without hyphen. I looked up poison ivy, Douglas fir, Osage orange. They all are without hyphens in Merriam-Webster dictionary, Wordsmyth dictionary, WordNet dictionary, Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (it has only poison ivy entry, not the rest), and my English-Finnish dictionary, and are often clearly described as species, not some vague type of plant. Then I searched from several scientific databases.

ITIS:

• Maclura pomifera: osage orange, osageorange, osage-orange
• Pseudotsuga menziesii: douglas fir, Douglas-fir
• Toxicodendron diversilobum: Pacific poison oak, pacific poisonoak
• Toxicodendron radicans: eastern poison ivy, poison ivy, poisonivy

NCBI:

• Maclura pomifera: Osage orange
• Pseudotsuga menziesii: Douglas-fir
• Toxicodendron diversilobum: western poison-oak
• Toxicodendron radicans: eastern poison ivy

USDA/NRCS PLANTS:

• Maclura pomifera: osage orange
• Pseudotsuga menziesii: Douglas-fir
• Toxicodendron diversilobum: Pacific poison oak
• Toxicodendron radicans: eastern poison ivy

I also searched from Funet database, but I think that it is sketchy and not maintained, so I would exlude it from the comparison.

It seems that the scientific databases use most commonly forms without hyphens. An exception is Douglas-fir. However, these samples aren't enough to decide how some plants should be called in Wikipedia. I hope that you participate in this discussion, and give examples from books. Also, which is more important, common usage or usage in scientific works? –Hapsiainen 15:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

More sources

MPF would like to add [1] an online book by US Forest Service: Silvics of North America

• Maclura pomifera: Osage-orange
• Pseudotsuga menziesii: Douglas-fir

So I add these:

Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants:

• Maclura pomifera: Osage orange; hedge apple
• Toxicodendron radicans: eastern poison ivy

Horticopia (for green industry)

• Maclura pomifera: Osage Orange
• Pseudotsuga menziesii: Douglas Fir
• Toxicodendron diversilobum: Western Poison Oak
• Toxicodendron radicans: Poison Ivy

–Hapsiainen 00:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the rationale is that poison ivy isn't ivy, an Osage orange isn't an orange, and Douglas fir isn't a fir. I agree there should be consistency. I think the hyphenated forms have become deprecated in recent years in favor of the non-hyphenated, but I'd be happy to go either way. --Curtis Clark 19:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Requested move, see Talk:Poison_ivy (I think it should stay as Poison-ivy (plant), really... It's *not* a type of ivy after all and it helps differentiate. --Chaosfeary 10:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question, how often the spelling "poison-ivy" is used. -Hapsiainen 20:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The original forms of all these names are unhyphenated. The hyphenated forms are an attempt by a few academics to impose their perception of order on the English language. Clearly Poison Ivy is not an ivy, but the way it is used in real life English is without the hyphen. I am a biologist (and am more likely to refer to many plants by the genus than by the common name), but I prefer common names to be left alone as much as possible. WormRunner 06:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It should also be noted that "German ivy" and "woodland ivy" are also not ivys, but are not usually hyphenated. Another example is "bigcone spruce", the other member of Pseudotsuga along with Douglas fir: It is not a spruce and is ordinarily not hyphenated. --Curtis Clark 15:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: move it to its scientific name. This avoids problems over hyphenation and capitalisation. - MPF 00:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur, but it seems not to be pattern and practice in Wikipedia. I suppose we could change that.--Curtis Clark 00:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I've proposed before that all plants should be moved to sci names (it's in the WP:TOL talk archives) - usually what's happened is that most of the people who actually work on plant articles agree with the idea (the no-sayers have generally been people with few or no plant article edits in their contribs), but nothing much ever gets done. Maybe it is time to get it done more fully - some time ago I got all of the non-Pinaceae conifers (except for Sequoiadendron) onto sci names as a test example, and it has worked very well. - MPF 00:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Some species can have several scientific names, while the taxonomists disagree which is the correct one. So we would still have disagreements about the correct title. Also, using scientific names in article titles is clearly against the Wikipedia naming conventions. "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." I have edited many animal articles, and I don't understand, how the situation with plant names would be so different. -Hapsiainen 00:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been my experience that common names for animals are far less confusing than the situation for plant common names. As an extreme example, in eastern Arkansas the common name "sugar maple" is applied both to Acer saccharum (a maple) and Populus deltoides (a poplar). That second species, P. deltoides may be called "cottonwood", "poplar", "aspen", or any number of other seemingly unrelated names, even though it's a standard and common tree. By contrast, a rat is a rat, and a skink is a skink. --EncycloPetey 04:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The common names of vertebrates and showy insects such as butterflies are more stable than scientific names because, like scientific names, they are regulated (either de jure, such as birds by the AOU, or de facto, through common use in field guides), but unlike scientific names, the common names aren't subject to change when new information is found. Plants are a different matter; there are many more species, many of them either don't have common names, or have "made-up" common names, and there is more regional variation (or more precisely, regional variation is not suppressed as much as with animals). To me, the biggest irony is that every member of the two genera I study has a scientific name, but only one Encelia and three Eschscholzias have legitimate common names, so that when I write an article about each of them, the close relationship between "brittlebush" and Encelia palmeri won't be obvious from the article titles.--Curtis Clark 04:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd mostly agree with Curtis, except that common names can, and very frequently do, change. Look at an 18th or 19th century plant book, and a lot (often, most) of the names used will be different. I for one, would much rather follow an academic trying to make names more accurate, than be bound to the original spellings of the poorly-educated populist masses - the purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate, not to continue to promulgate historical errors of identification. If we are going to follow the anti-educational populist redneck supremacy that seems to be sweeping much of the world, we should also be taking on creationism rather than evolution: in this lies much of the logic in accepting names like 'poison oak' - if things are created individually, not evolved, they cannot have relationships, and a white oak is no more or less like a poison oak than it is a red oak. If we accept scientific understanding (as I believe we should), then we recognise that 'poison oak' is not an oak (Quercus) and so should not be called one, to educate and avoid confusion. - MPF 14:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting take. I don't disagree, but I also think that standardizing common names is a way of asserting cultural hegemony, and using scientific names is a way of freeing common names from that hegemony. In the ethnobotany garden of BioTrek, we label the plants so that the largest and easiest-to-see name is the Tongva name (the label also includes the binomial and an English common name), because that is what we are about.

I had a conversation with an Estonian botanist on a taxonomy list. He had stated that in Estonia, common names for (macroscopic) plants and animals had been standardized, and that he saw nothing wrong with that. I asked him, "What if it had been the Russians who standardized them?" He immediately got the point. Control of the names of things is control of culture, and scientific names are a system independent (as much as possible) of that. Wikipedia should not be in the business of enforcing cultural hegemony.

And I'd suggest checking out Red deer as an example of how common names can go awry. It would be better IMO to have the article entitled Cervus elaphus, followed with something along the lines of "called 'red deer' in Eurasia and 'elk' or 'wapiti' in North America".--Curtis Clark 19:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Coming in late, but I am opposed to the hyphenation of "common" names like "poison-ivy" unless that is truly a common usage. This is a recent and rather tortured linguistic device that is making an attempt at precision but has little or no support in the real world. I don't even know any botanists who do this, although I don't doubt that there are a few out there. But the bottom line is that "Poison ivy", without a hyphen, is far and away the commonest form of the name you will find. Common names by their very nature often don't have any rhyme or reason (although in this case there's the excellent reason that outside the rarified world of systematic botany many vining plants are commonly known as "ivy" whether or not they belong to the genus Hedera; that's what makes them common or vernacular, and not botanical, names). MrDarwin 17:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I have had some disagreements with MPF regarding common names, but I agree wholeheartedly with MPF that plant articles should fall under the botanical ("scientific") name, with the various and sundry common names redirecting to that, rather than vice-versa. Common names (for plants, at least) are imprecise, confusing, misleading, and the "common" names of any particular species vary too much from one English-speaking country to the next. MrDarwin 03:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, big sigh. This is wikipedia. It only takes one concerned editor a few secs to add the redirects of the hyphenated/non-hyphenated versions. And it really doesn't matter if ground ivy, boston ivy, or poison ivy aren't members of the genus Hedera. What matters is that a user (as opposed to an editor) can look up what they're trying to look up, and get to the article about the thing they're trying to look up. SB Johnny 23:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"New" Tropical Fruits

I have some knowledge about tropical fruits and wish to add them to Wikipedia for general noncommercial interest. These amount to some high quality foods generally unknown. I guess I will just do this in the appropriate plant family area (ie taxonomically), although the average person doesn't think "name of plant" when he or she sees a fruit. Cross referencing to foods would be good as well. Any comments appreciated. Dkchandlee

Sounds like you have some interesting articles to add! It would make most sense to publish them under pages by scientific (binomial) names unless the Common name is well known and unambiguous. Then link them to other pages as you mentioned. Check out the list on the page on tropical fruit. NoahElhardt 05:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

non-biologist needs help!

Hi, the main page currently contains a link to the 2006 Table Mountain fire (under the news items), which according to this source has destroyed between 40 and 50 percent of the world's silver leaf tree population. This fact is noted in the fire article and thus it contains a link to the silver leaf tree article (which I created). Unfortunately, my knowledge of trees is VERY limited so the article in its current for is an unsatisfactory stub. Given that the article is only 2 links deep from the main page I think it needs to be expanded... Help will be much appreciated. Mikkerpikker ... 23:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Expanded it. Also moved the page to the scientific name, as various references I looked at gave a choice of four different common names, making a NPOV common name title difficult. - MPF 17:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot MPF, I've seen your changes & appreciate the input! Mikkerpikker ... 20:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Flower Resource

The Wikipedia Help Desk has been approached by the Flower Expert website [2]. It looks like a useful resource for people writing articles on flowering plants. Capitalistroadster 07:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Took a look at it - it doesn't appear to me to have much (if any) useful content that we don't already have. Actually, a lot of their info looks like it is copied off wikipedia, but old page versions from some time ago. - MPF 13:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Article content

As I suggested at Talk:Malvaceae, I think it would be a good idea for this project to define what is the appropriate content for articles about specific plant taxa. For instance, compared to, say fishes, for which the families are generally stable and agreed-upon, plant families seem somewhat chaotic and ill-defined. So there is going to be part of the article that is complicated because it has to describe the chaos, but there is some general material that is straightforward ("cactaceae have areoles usually with spines") and that connects the technical botanical material with what most people are familiar with. Agreement will also help both in fixing up existing articles and adding new ones, and reduce time spent debating what is and is not appropriate for each. Stan 18:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Plant families seem "chaotic and undefined" because systematic botany is currently in the middle of a major (and exciting!) period of upheaval. Due to a growing emphasis on cladistic methodology, combined with numerous phylogenetic studies (primarily molecular, but the best of these incorporate morphology, biogeography, and other characters as well) at all different taxonomic levels that have been published in the last decade or so, many families are in the process of being re-defined and re-circumscribed; some are being split, others are being merged. Many of the affected families (e.g., Scrophulariaceae, Liliaceae) were already acknowledged to be unnatural and heterogeneous but there are few families that are completely unaffected. Until the dust settles there is no good solution other than discussing the "chaos" itself, and the reasons for it. My own compromise has been to primarily limit the discussion to comparing and contrasting the Cronquist system and Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification, which are two of the major systems in current usage. However, even the APG system has been modified since its relatively recent publication. Most of the proposed changes make perfect sense to those of us inside the field of systematic botany, but I don't doubt that to those outside the field it looks like a train wreck in progress! MrDarwin 19:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Systematists could think of WP as an opportunity to explain what's going on to a nonspecialist audience. It could even help adoption of new organization; the impression I get from literature is that some of the current mess comes from people proposing systems in the past and getting only partial "buy-in" each time. WP reaches a far wider audience than a random specialist journal, so good distillations of the current state can be influential. Stan 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

One thing I have been trying to do, and would strongly encourage others to do, is to refer to and cite the original literature, and provide links to those references if they are available online. There is far too much unverified, and sometimes erroneous, information in many plant articles; providing references allows the user to not only verify the information that is presented but get far more information if he or she needs it. This is especially important for groups that are undergoing rapid (and sometimes contentious) changes. 14:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been a bit flustered a few times by this as well... personally I'd like the taxonomists to settle things first before putting the newest and most exciting change here on wiki. At the very least, perhaps the taxonomical disputes could be discussed at the bottom of the page rather than the top, so that the beginning of the article is about the plant, rather than about arguments that are about the plant (i.e., discourse before metadiscourse).

Additionally, I think it would be a good idea to preserve the old names in the old genera until the more practical-minded get used to the changes (i.e., preserving the name Aster novae-angliae on the Aster page, rather than just deleting it and moving it to a page of the current (unpronouncable) genus. SB Johnny 13:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Poa = Parodiochloa?

Does anyone know whether genus Poa and genus Parodiochloa, both of the family Poaceae, are the same thing under two different names, or two distinct genera? According to List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland 8, the common name of Poa flabellata is Tussac-grass, but there is an article Tussac Grass that says the species in question is Parodiochloa flabellata. If the two are in fact the same thing, the two articles should be merged. If they're different, then List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland 8 should be corrected. Thanks! Angr/talk 19:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Poa and Parodiochloa are not the same thing. Poa is a large genus and Parodiochloa seems to be a recent segregate from it. But the two names you ask about are one and the same species: Parodiochloa flabellata is a recently published new name for Poa flabellata, although I don't know how widely accepted this name, or the genus Parodiochloa, might be. A good source for nomenclatural and taxonomic information on plant genera and species is the Missouri Botanical Garden'sTropicos. It's not nearly complete, but for the names it does include there's a lot of good information. MrDarwin 19:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, yes, Poa flabellata and Tussac Grass should be merged as both articles discuss the same species? Angr/talk 19:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That depends. Is "Tussac Grass" a unique common name that refers only to this species, or is the name a spelling variant of "tussock grass", which can refer to any number of species? I'm probably the wrong person to ask, as I have little patience for "common names" and I'm an advocate for creating articles under the botanical (scientific) name, with common names redirecting to that article (or having a disambiguation page, as I suspect this one would need). MrDarwin 20:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm not a biologist. But there is a different article Tussock Grass. But the point is, the current content of the article Tussac Grass (regardless of whether it should be called that) is about the same species as the article Poa flabellata, and we shouldn't have two articles on the same topic. Angr/talk 20:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I checked out both articles and it looks like you're right. I would suggest merging them under Poa flabellata (with a note about the name Parodiochloa flabellata). I don't know what to do about "tussac grass" (I'm no grass expert) but I suspect it's a variant or misspelling of "tussock". I just did a Google search on the "tussac" spelling and found several articles, all apparently referring to the Falklands species so this may indeed be a spelling unique to that region. I would suggest keeping it as a redirect it to the Poa flabellata article, and maybe include a link under the article "tussock grass" as well. MrDarwin 20:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. But I would prefer leaving it to someone who does know something about plants to do the merger. I'm just a translator. Angr/talk 21:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Curtis Clark 04:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would guess you are two years too early in looking for great articles on plants. Wikipedia has great potential, but as yet it is unrealized where plants are concerned. Brya 21:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments anyway - but I hope you may be proved wrong! In 18 months I watched WP:Chem go from an inactive project to a very lively place with several FAs and about 25 GAs. It will probably take us a year to produce a large-size print/DVD version, as it happedns. Keep plugging away, please! For WP1.0, thanks Walkerma 05:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What kinds of plant articles are you looking for? Perhaps the article on Utricularia would qualify? I'll be keeping my eyes open. NoahElhardt 05:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're looking for both high-quality articles to add to the listing of A-Class articles as well as important plant articles, regardless of shape, for listing in the science listing of assessed articles. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that articles on each of the major groups of plants would be desirable for inclusion in such a project, but I'm not sure that any of these articles merit more than a B at this point. For land plants, the relevant articles are: Marchantiophyta, hornwort, moss, bryophyte, vascular plant, Lycopodiophyta, fern, spermatophyte, Pinophyta, cycad, Ginkgo, flowering plant, monocotyledon, dicotyledon, though others would undoubtedly consider other articles to (eventually) be worth adding to this list. Perhaps one or more of these articles should be nominated for the Article Improvement Drive. --EncycloPetey 14:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I have done my best to assess these, but I'm know very little about botany so could you please check/adjust my assessments here? I judged Bladderwort to be A-Class, is that OK? I also thought that cycad looked close to A, would it just need a section on life cycle and some more wikilinks to be A? I did find some of the articles to be full of technical terms (as I would expect), and words like allopatry can benefit from wikilinks. The articles seem to have lots of nice pictures and references, something many articles lack. Please edit my amateurish assessments. Thanks, Walkerma 03:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

APG II and Wikipedia

I keep seeing variations of the phrase "Wikipedia has adopted the APG II system" in various botanical articles and it continues to irritate me to no end. While I believe the classification system devised by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group has considerable merit, and due to its influence should certainly be acknowledged (if only to compare it to previous influential systems, e.g., the Cronquist system), the fact remains that there are numerous authors of Wikipedia articles who have varying degrees of acceptance of the APG system. Morevoer, it remains to be seen whether the details of its classification will be widely accepted, and as it is already several years old parts of it are already being modified by subsequent authors. "Adoption" of a particular system published at a particular time means that newer, and possibly better, systems will be rejected (never mind the fact that adoption of a particular system represents a non-neutral POV!) MrDarwin 20:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If I were going to make a list of things that irritate me, this would either be far down on the list or not on it. The fact is if wikipedia has to have taxoboxes and is going to categorize entries by taxonomic placement then a standard system is pretty much a must. Of course, a more balanced result would be achieved if every entry was just linked to the next higher taxon. Then, the circumscription and taxonomic placement of each taxon could be discussed in its own entry. This would be much more accurate, but would also be slower to read. As far as I can judge, a move to discontinue taxoboxes would be unpopular. Therefore, we are stuck with having a standardised (i.e. fixed and in that sense objective) system. In that case, the obvious candidate is APG II. This is a convenience in that it gives a standard to compare to, giving arguments why it is right or wrong, as the case may be. Of course, it remains important to emphasize at every opportunity that any taxonomic system is ephemeral. Brya 11:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Brya, I guess my main request is that, rather than saying that "Wikipedia has adopted..." you simply describe how something is classified under the APG system, and possibly how that differs from previous classifications. The question does of course arise as to how we should handle post-APG II classifications; I suspect that many parts of the APG system will be rejected or modified as systematists work on specific groups. (BTW you could probably tell I was in an especially irritable mood the last couple of days!) MrDarwin 14:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid I am too tired to have noticed your being irritable. I can understand your problem about my being ham-fisted about promoting APG over Cronquist, but I am afraid my policy is deliberate. This is not because I believe in APG II, as such. I can think of quite a few unkind things to say about APG (I won't say them). However, when it comes down to authoritative systems, there is no alternative.

The way I see it, the big problem is not that there is a 'standard system' but that most people are trying to use APG II and Cronquist at the same time, without noticing the difference. This is a problem of vast proportions as the wikipedia's in other languages are mirroring what happens here, with variations (as far as I can tell the German wikipedia has decided to become a publishing taxonomist itself, in assigning the eudicots the rank of class and naming it Rosopsida). I feel my approach is justified (at the risk of being ham-fisted): I am just trying to turn the juggernaut in what may not be the 'right' direction, but in what at least would be a consistent policy. As I cannot touch any entry that has a taxobox in it without starting a major war, I am trying to clean up the taxonomic entries dealing with non-current names. In doing so I am going for short, clear entries that will allow for a maximum of navigatability. Hopefully this will enable the user to make quick checks to compare the status of various taxa. Thus I may build up basic awareness of the issues.

As I said earlier I am not afraid of APG II becoming obsolete and Wikipedia being stuck with it; if ever APG III is published Wikipedia will be the first to adopt it. Don't underestimate the appeal of a shiny new gadget. Brya 20:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Template: botanist

I made a suggestion for a change to template:botanist. See template talk:botanist. Brya 15:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Flora AID nomination

I would like to inform you that the article Flora (plants) has been nominated in WP:AID. The article, I believe, needs serious improvements. I ask your votes, assistance and colaboration to make this a Feature article WP:FA. Thank you!! --Francisco Valverde 07:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)==

Update on Flora

Due to discussions in the WP:AID nomination it was decided to change the WP:AID nomination to the WP:COTW nomination. It was considered that Flora (plants) was really a stub, even though it has a considerable length. I invite all of you to contribute to this article. --Francisco Valverde 09:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

COTW Nomination

The stub article on the Fabales has been nominated for Collaboration of the week. It will need lots of votes to beat votes from the "Balkan Block". --EncycloPetey 09:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Plant classification

Hi there, just got the editing bug and have found myself adding to plant articles. How should plant articles be named? From my background and education in this area I have always looked to the latin name first. Some articles for example the sweet pea has the latin name redirected to the common name. What is the general rule, should common names redirect to the latin named article as seems to be the case with many? Lynnathon 13:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus here. My own opinion (shared by many other Wikipedians) is that having the common name(s) redirect to the scientific name is in the long run less problematic.--Curtis Clark 15:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, how do we go about setting up a new guideline for this rule? Makes sense that it should be a firm rule that others can follow - will save a lot of confussion I would imagine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lynnathon (talk • contribs) .

I completely agree. I think that the unofficial custom is to use common names only when the common names are commonly used (pig, sweet pea, etc.). This, however, causes a whole mess of problems mainly involving ambiguoisty. My personal inclination is in agreement with yours - use latin names and redirects for common names. I do agree that there should be some sort of semi-formalized guidelines. No guideline will work for everything, as many common names refer to multiple taxa and can therefore not have simple redirects, but rather require their own pages with links to specific taxa. --NoahElhardt 00:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a stab at setting up disambiguation pages with pictures where common names refer to multiple taxa. I am going to begin to rename articles according to their latin name and set up links/redirects for the common names. Lynnathon 18:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with NoahElhardt. After having a disagreement on the article title for Common Broom and realizing that naming conventions really can't apply to it some plant species (see Talk:Common Broom for details of that discussion), I feel the best course of action would be to divert most plant articles to their scientific names. Though perhaps we should also take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Article title for some guidance in this area? -Rkitko 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Latin is a useful compromise when there is no clear winner among English names. However, if you don't feel comfortable using the latin name throughout the article text, and fall back to using a common name, that's a sign that maybe the title shouldn't be in latin either. Stan 05:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Synonymy mix-up?

Can somebody look up Echinochloa crus-galli and Echinochloa crusgalli ? Circeus 18:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The former is correct. I set the latter to redirect.--Curtis Clark 03:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I couldn't set aside the slim possibility that they might both be somehow valid. Circeus 04:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Plant article naming conventions

Let the discussion begin!!! Alan Liefting 10:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

My comments:

• The use of binomial nomenclature names makes Wikipedia inaccessable for the majority since categories will give lists of the scientific names and not the common name. See Category:Trees of New Zealand as an example.
  • This is a misuse of the category tag. It is possible to do, for example, [[Category:Flora of California|Coast live oak]] even if the article were Quercus agrifolia.
• Use the binomial name if no common name exists.
• If a plant is endemic the common name should be used.
  • Disagree. Many plants have only "constructed" common names, often a translation of the scientific name. These should never be used as article names unless the name is used in official lists, e.g. of endangered species.
• If more than one common name exists for a plant the most common one is to be used.
  • See what happened with Cytisus scoparius. The most common name in western North America is a slur in Scotland.
• Indigenous names, if not the same as the common name, should be redireted to the main article of the species as well as being noted in the article.
  • If it is an English indigenous name, it is the common name, for the purposes of Wikipedia. Non-English indigenous names should only be used (and only as redirects) if they are known in English usage.
• If there is more than one common name only the commonly used common names should be redirected to the main article. Disused names should be noted in the plant article but not redirected unless notable.
  • Agree.
• Pages that discuss plants in a genus should use the binomial name but a common name should be listed in the article as well. If there are numerous common names this rule does not apply. In this situation the article name would be the binomial name and all the common names mentioned in the article and/or redirected to it.
• Plant names for invasive plant or introduced plant articles should be named after the name used in their country of origin. Names used in other parts of the plant's current range, where diffeent to the counrty of origin, should be redirected to the main article.
  • This is a prime example of the value of using a scientific name. Cytisus scoparius is a good example.

I think the category rules, although they too need to be addressed, are not germane to this discussion:

• Cosmopolitan plants should not not be allocated to any category for a country's flora unless notable. This would clutter up the main article. An example is bracken which is found on every continent except Antarctica.
• If a plant is found in less that about three countries it sould be included in the appropriate flora categories for those countries. If common names differ for the same species between the countries the appropriate redirect page for the common name should include the flora category. For example Wineberry (New Zealand) should be in Category:Trees of New Zealand rather than Aristotelia serrata.

--Curtis Clark 04:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous names

Here in New Zealand indegenous names and English names are sometimes used interchangeably. There has been a trend over the past 50 odd years towards using the indigenous names rather than the English names. My preference for article naming convention (which I have been using) is to:

• use the most common name, regardless of whether it is English or Maori, for the article name.
• redirect the alternative (English/Maori) name to the article.

I also include the alternative name in the article. Alan Liefting 10:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Endemic plants

Many plants have only "constructed" common names, often a translation of the scientific name.

Once again here in New Zealand we have many endemic plants with common names. The common names are generally Maori but they are used by Pakeha. Therefore we should remove English from your stategy that reads Plants that are restricted to a single region and that have only a single English common name in wide use in that region.

Alan Liefting 10:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Garden hybrids

Any thoughts on these? I've just renamed an article to Lilium "Stargazer". Other possibilities would include Stargazer Lily, Lilium 'Stargazer'. Imc 19:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories in redirect pages

I have placed categories within redirect pages. See Kotukutuku for example. It seems to work but I am unsure if it is recommended. It is a useful trick to get certain article names into a category. Alan Liefting 10:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I did that to a couple redirects today, but I'm worried that this will create a serious nightmare. See another discussion on this [here]. I'm worried that having every name for a plant (which often have numerous common names, and often competing scientific names as well) will simply make a huge mess out of the categories. SB Johnny 16:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe making the mess is what will move this issue foreward? SB Johnny 17:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What I am proposing will not create a mess. Wikipedia must serve the specialist and the generalist. For plants this means using common names and scientific names. The Wikipedia:Category system can be used to categorise articles using scientific and common names. What needs to be done, and is not done for plant articles, is to place an appropriate category in the redirect page. The common name and the scientific name can then both be used for classifying plants in a parallel but interlinked manner. With a combination of categories in the redirect pages and the article pages a system of classification can be made as:

• Flora by country using common names,
• Order/family/genus categorisation using the scientific name.

Alan Liefting 11:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ignore my comments above. It will not work as I envisaged. Alan Liefting 12:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've been adding category tags to BN redirect pages. However, I've noticed that some tags are for families, others for orders, etc. If there is no category for the family, should I just create one? I think I remember somewhere that categories are supposed to be debated first, but if so, debated by whom? Also just trying to stick to the taxonomic categories rather than the "praxis" categories such as "flora of here or there", garden plants, or "invasive plants". SB Johnny 15:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

How to be botanically NPOV!

If a plant is native to more than one counrty it may be advisable to use the binomial name as the main article and redirect all common names to it. An exception would be if it is notable in a global sense in one particular country. Alan Liefting 11:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say "native or naturalized" since invasive species are often given different names outside of their native range. -Rkitko 14:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Even within one country there may be numerous common names. Weedy plants in particular often have long lists of regional names. (In some old herbals, these are actually called "country names" (meaning rural, not national). The linnean structure was created in part to create a neutral language... shouldn't we try using it? SB Johnny 11:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

To some extent the Linnaean system has been a failure, in that even after 200+ years, nonscientists have only partly adopted it. Try talking about Bellis or Aquilegia, even in your neighborhood nursery, and you'll get a puzzled look and a search for the resident expert. Of course, plenty of other names are current - around here you'll always see Euonymus or Clematis rather than any English names. (As I mentioned above, the real litmus test is whether it seems reasonable to use the Linnean name throughout the article's running text, not just as title.) Stan 14:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes but your comment there definitely has a regional POV (no offense) :). Around here, everyone says Aquelegia... the puzzled looks would arise if you said "Columbine". I don't think Linnaeus really intended it for the use of non-scientists, so that's not really a failure. It's really that when people look up something on wiki, they're seeking knowledge about the thing, and an important part of that knowledge will be it's scientific name (which allows them to research further, etc.). As I've said elsewhere, it really doesn't matter much... as long as the end user gets to the information they're looking for, who cares what the name (ie. URL) of the page is? What naming the page using the scientific name does is allow the editors (you and me) to get around easier and make the articles better. SB Johnny 16:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point about regionalism! Actually, Linnaeus did intend for general use, because in his day science was largely an amateur part-time activity, and for instance it was not unusual for educated persons to engage in a bit of plant and animal collection while on trips and such. (He chose Latin because it was the usual second language of educated people.) Keep in mind that allowing editors to "get around easier" is very much a secondary mission, versus allowing general readers to get around easier - but in practice, I think most common names will end up being disambiguators, as people collect all the random names that have been used (fish people have it easy, they now have a multilingual database of common names used for each species). Just today I was in a confused conversation where "bird of paradise" meant completely different genera to the participants. Stan 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I'd support putting all plants at scientific names, with the exception of important commercial species, which would have two pages, one at the scientific name discussing the botanical aspects of the plant and one at the common name discussing cultivation and use (some already do, e.g. Coffea arabica, coffee); the two pages would of course be cross-linked. This follows the example of the New RHS Dictionary of Gardening (a four-volume plant encyclopaedia).

Reasons -

• I think mixing common names for some species and scientific names for others (particularly within in a genus, but also on general principle) looks very odd, and is very confusing. Yet of course almost every genus has at least some species with either no common name or else a confusing or unsuitable one. Giving every page the sci name title keeps everything neat and tidy.
• Another big advantage for scientific name use is en:wiki's senior position among the wikipedias generally. Because of the dominant position of the English language, vastly more species have pages in en:wiki than in any other wiki. This I consider leaves us with a clear responsibility to others to make our work easy to find globally. When someone from e.g. Greece wants to find out about e.g. Juniperus oxycedrus and finds there is no Greek wiki page on it, en:wiki is the wiki they are most likely to turn to; a person in that position will almost certainly know the scientific name, but not the English common name.
• As per SBJohnny's comments above (re Aquilegia), for most plants, the scientific names are as well-known or better known than 'common' names. If anyone doubts the ability of people to use and memorise scientific names, ask any dinosaur-interested 8-year old child to name a few dinosaurs: they'll all be scientific names, and very likely written without typos, too.
• On indigenous names - most of these are not well known globally. To take Alan's New Zealand example, while I personally like the Maori names (they're much better than most of the Pakeha names for the same species!), to most people outside of NZ, they are unfamiliar. I'm pretty good on knowing diverse common names, but there's only 2 or 3 of the Maori names I can reliably remember what they are without looking up; one of these (Kauri) is the only one I would say is really well-known outside of NZ, and is so well-known that it now refers to the whole genus Agathis as well as the NZ species A. australis (so becomes a disambig page). But for the rest - outside of NZ, Libocedrus bidwillii is far more helpful than Pahautea (I just had to look up to check I got the right name!), and Podocarpus totara more so than Totara.
• Also on indigenous names - several genera have very wide distributions, so indigenous names for different species derive from different languages. Seeing "Huililahuán" (Mapuche, Chile) and "Totara" (Maori, NZ) together on the same page gives no indication of what they are or that the two might be related; conversely, Podocarpus nubigenus and Podocarpus totara does (actually, they're so closely related as to be difficult to distinguish if planted together!).
• Categories in redirect pages. That this is now possible (it used not to be) is very helpful; it means that every common name redirect (and disambig) could be put in one or more categories, to make categories like Category:Podocarp family common names, Category:New Zealand plants by Maori names, which common names can be looked up in. The Kotukutuku example shows how well it works. BTW, "It seems to work but I am unsure if it is recommended" - since it has been made to work, we may presume it is recommended, or at least permitted.

MPF 01:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

---

MPF's comments have caused me to rethink my belief that it would never be possible to use scientific names primarily. The separation of botanical articles from economic articles (as the coffee example above) will take time; at least two of them (black pepper and saffron) are featured articles, and it will take some consensus-building among their editors, but a similar split was made in Ephedra (even though the article on medicinal uses still refers to the generic name).

Indigenous names are at least straightforward in Aotearoa, but here in California we had linguistic diversity that rivaled the Caucasus and other noted linguistic patchworks. Only because most of the languages are sadly either extinct or ignored is there no longer an issue (we actually have more Nahua indigenous names in use for the California flora than local indigenous names).

I was unaware of categories of redirect pages. That changes everything, and removes another objection to listing all plants by their binomials.

I have revised my proposal on Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants.--Curtis Clark 03:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

---

MPF's comments on categories in redirect pages makes me realise that this can be a very powerful feature. WP can be loaded with every common name, binomial name, notable historic name and indigenous name and they can all be redirected appropriately and catagorised appropriately. Alan Liefting 10:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Working on a plant list... but maybe a category will be better?

Just started a List of plants with burrs, but I'm wondering if maybe this should be a cat instead? Maybe both? The categories of course make it easier to get to the other members from any page, but a list can be annotated. SB Johnny 16:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be a Burr (botany). The current Burr is a disambiguation page. And a List of plants with burrs isn't very useful without a clear explanation of what a burr is.

And will we have a List of plants with samaras or a List of plants with berries? I can see a value to these, but they will be hard to maintain, and, like burrs, subject to botanical disagreement (a banana fits the definition of pepo, but since it isn't in the Cucurbitaceae, it is usually called a berry)--Curtis Clark 17:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

True enough. Actually, some of the plants I put on maybe aren't true burrs (or maybe they are, I don't know the strict definition in any case. Might be better to call it list of plants with seeds that stick to clothing or some other mouthful.

A list of plants with samaras, hard nuts, etc., might also be useful for the same reason, namely to function as a "key" for users wanting to look up a plant. SB Johnny 17:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Was just looking things over at Identification keys... curious to hear opinions on making keys on wp?SB Johnny 18:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't help with the botanical issues, but I've come to think recently that a dual approach is best (list and category). In essence, I find that I tend to use categories from one article to find similar concepts (a bottom-up approach I guess), whilst lists I tend to use to find members of a similarity that I am already aware of (top-down). I think we need both for proper useful bidirectional referencing. — Estarriol ^talk 21:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about this again (while pulling burrs off my socks and dog), berhaps just a category "Plants with sticky seeds"? SB Johnny 12:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Botanist template: Edit request

Please see Template talk:Botanist if you know how to edit templates - thanks, MPF 00:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Dwarf Cornel?

Just a quick question--what sources use the term Canadian Dwarf Cornel for Cornus canadensis?? I have never seen this term used (except here). In Canada, all sources I've ever seen refer to it as "Canada bunchberry" or simply "bunchberry." Perhaps one (or both) are local vernacular names. Help in solving this question is greatly appreciated. --chris 19:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sander's The Flower Garden (sixth edition, 1935), published in London, UK, gives the common name as "Dwarf Cornel". I suppose "Canadian" has been added to distinguish it from the Eurasian Dwarf Cornel Cornus suecica, not mentioned in the book.--Melburnian 09:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It didn't take long with google to find plenty of pages showing that both C. canadensis and C. suecica are both sometimes called bunchberry, and both sometimes called dwarf cornel - not surprising, as the two are very similar to each other. They are both titled at their scientific names now - MPF 22:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That works! --chris 16:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A mess of tomatoes...

Pretty confused there: Lycopersicon (the old name for a few species of Solanum) currently redirects to Tomato (as in garden tomato, missing currant tomato, and leaving cherry tomato out of the loop). Probably will just go ahead and make Lycopersicon a disambig, then add redirects from the old species names. I'll also add categories to the redirects, following my sense of the conversation above.

My question is, why is the category "Solanales" rather than Solanaceae? Should I just create the category and re-tag members of the family to the new category? SB Johnny 12:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I should add that there is at least one other old member of the genus... see this [USDA database page]. SB Johnny 12:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The main reason that the article is in an order catis that, for the most part, plants were never broken down to the family levels. Part of the reason is that fewer plant articles exist than animal ones. Feel free to break these categories Circeus 12:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Will do then. But what's the general feeling about putting category tags on redirects from now-defunct genera/species? SB Johnny 14:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea. If it is a legit genus, there's nothing saying you can'texpand it back into an article, though. Circeus 14:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Something like this will be OK then? SB Johnny 14:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made some edits to the Lycopersicon dab page to make it more precise.--Curtis Clark 15:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

New project, and a wikibook

First, just wanted to announce the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Horticulture_and_Gardening, which was started a while ago, but I was not aware of the Plants project at the time, so didn't announce it.

I've created a new wikibook called A Wikimanual of Gardening on our sister site, in the hopes of clearing up the "how-to" problems involved with many of the plant and garden pages. I will watch this book and try to keep on top of it, but help would be greatly appreciated. For information on transwiking to this book, please see the chapter Chapter on transwiking. The goal is to preserve "how-to" information from plant articles, while avoiding "dumping" of book fragments (wikibookians don't like that). SB Johnny 17:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidates for Featured Articles anyone?

Getting used to this. Trying to spruce up Banksia page Cas Liber 02:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put a lot of work lately into Drosera, Pinguicula, and the recently completed Sarracenia. The page on Carnivorous plants is also looking pretty good, as is Nepenthes rajah (although this one is a bit long... might want to ask the authors what their plans are for this page, as it is continually being improved (minor changes, mostly)). --NoahElhardt 01:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Drosera is starting to look really good (might try to give constructive feedback there later) Cas Liber 21:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Really odd category needs cleanup...

Please see Category_talk:Caryophyllales (I forget how to link to the cat without having this page come up on it). There are genera listed as subcategories to the order, while families are listed as simple pages. I'll try to work on it, but it looks like a big job. SB Johnny 10:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Brya RFC

You might want to know that a RFC has been opened regarding User:Brya's POVediting, MoS violation and general attitude at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Brya. Circeus 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please help with a template!

I'd like to create a "hortibox" template (similar to the taxobox) with information about growing conditions for cultivated plants (see comments here for details). I went to the template for the taxobox and found a warning saying it was quite complicated, so decided I'd better ask for help from more compitent hands. SB Johnny 16:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Range maps

I've found a large public domain repository of North American plant range maps from USGS [3]. These might be worth uploading, especially those plants with wide ranges. I've already uploaded and inserted some of the Abies range maps into the articles. SCHZMO ✍ 12:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Mislabelled trifolium?

Trifolium pratense?

I doubt this image's identification as Red clover, see commons:Trifolium pratense:

• Flowers have pointy petals
• Leaves are longer and much less round
• Leaves are paler and lack the distinctive v-pattern of T. pratense

Circeus 03:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's Trifolium medium. I've corrected the ident on the pic at commons and removed it from the Red Clover page - MPF 21:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User Box and other bits and bobs

Hi, I have created a User Box for WikiProject Plants. Please feel free to use it template:User WikiProject Plants.

Are there any objections to my adding this user box to our main project page?

I noticed that on our stub articles we have a standard plant stub template. What are your views on adding a link to this project that invites people to join as a few WikiProjects seem to do? Eg. The Mixed Martial Arts project see this article; Evan Tanner.

If you also look at the discussion page of talk:Evan Tanner you will see that they also have a project banner on the article. What are you views regarding this project doing soemthing similar? This would help to direct people to this WikiProject to either join and then help us make our articles better or to ask advice and guidance.

Thanks Lynnathon 09:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• In my recent experience, such stubs and banners are how most people find WikiProjects; certainly the membership of WP:MMA has roughly trebled in a few months since we created the stub and project banners. — Estarriol ^talk 10:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Plant infobox?

I've created a prototype of a "plant infobox" template at User:Schzmo/Infobox Plant. This may be useful as a quick reference to readers who only want to know general characteristics of some plant without having to read everything. I only know basic template syntax so it's pretty simple right now. This infobox would probably be most useful for trees and shrubs. SCHZMO ✍ 12:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe combine that with this Horticulture infobox template? -- SB Johnny 12:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry, see it here) SB Johnny 12:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, then we might have too much stuff in templates and that wouldn't look nice. SCHZMO ✍ 14:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The {{taxobox}} is already present on almost all pages. This risk cluttering them unnecessarily. Circeus 14:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I worry about that too, though Schzmo's addition might be more poignant than the "hortobox" for general WP usage. SB Johnny 16:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I just now took a look at the plant infobox, and my impression is that it includes seemingly arbitrary parts of a full plant description. What about inflorescence type? Flower color? Habit? Leaf margin? It has the advantage of forcing descriptions to be parallel (something that is useful for species in a genus or genera in a family, but less so for species in a family), but for any given group it may leave out the most important features.--Curtis Clark 16:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A proposed addition to naming conventions

If a plant has two or more common names that are equally common, then the scientific name is to be used.

For example, Trachycarpus fortunei has two common names that are in equally common usage; Chusan Palm which tends to be used in Britain, and (Chinese) Windmill Palm which tends to be used in the US. SCHZMO ✍ 15:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm in favor of using the scientific name in most cases, I obviously support this.--Curtis Clark 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That would make sense. Circeus 16:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Taxobox for flowering plants

As promised, some suggestions for taxoboxes for plants. Although I am in greatly in favor of making sure that accurate information on taxonomic placement is provided I am not a big fan of taxoboxes. The two main disadvantages of taxoboxes are that they emphasize higher ranks (taxonomically completely uninteresting) and that they take up a large amount of space, which in some cases is disproportionate.

However when taxoboxes are used they should not be in conflict with basic wikipedia policies. This means that the taxonomy that it presents should be one that exists in the world out there, in a published work. The present taxoboxes claim to follow the APG II system 2003 but actually don't.

In the case of a classification such as genus Musa in family Musaceae in order Zingiberales in class Liliopsida in division Magnoliophyta in regnum Plantae: this is not an APG classification, but it does exist (e.g. as a Cronquist classification). It is more or less compatible with APG, in that a new classification based on APG groups can be published and that this new classification could use these names.

In the case of a classification such as genus Guaiacum in family Zygophyllaceae in order Zygophyllales in class Magnoliopsida in division Magnoliophyta: this is not only not-an-APG-classification but is incompatible with APG. There is no way that a new classification based on APG groups could be published which would use these names (unless Magnoliopsida are taken to be the angiosperms).

There appear two ways forward:

1. actually follow APG II, or
2. follow the update from the upcoming 3rd edition of the Plant-book by prof D.J.Mabberley.

APG II

The APG II system uses formal botanical names only for families and orders. Otherwise it uses informal names for clades. The clades are the main groups and are nested :

• angiosperms :

  magnoliids

  monocots

  commelinids

  eudicots

  core eudicots

  rosids

  eurosids I

  eurosids II

  asterids

  euasterids I

  euasterids II

Depending into how much detail is desirable a taxobox could look like:

Guaiacum officinale
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae, angiosperms, eurosids I
Family:	Zygophyllaceae
Genus:	Guaiacum
Binomial name
Guaiacum officinale

This means that components should be added to allow clades to be inserted into a taxobox. Also as such a taxobox will use both formal botanical names (according to the ICBN and informal names it would be good to use a form of typesetting to set them apart, for example either italicize the formal names or bold face the informal names, or both. It may be enough not to capitalize the informal names, but in such cases reduncacy helps.

The highest group that the APG recognizes is the "angiosperms", which results in a degree of uncertainty when fitting that group into a higher rank.

Mabberley

The update according to Mabberley will try and present a consensus of a much greater group of botanists. As the book has not yet been published exact details are not known. However according to a prepublication it will differ from strict APG II in that

1. it will promote some families to be their own order Boraginales, Buxales, Vitales. This has already been done at the AP-website and the NCBI Browser
2. it will replace names such as eurosids I, eurosids II, euasterids I, euasterids II by their more user friendly equivalents fabids, malvids, lamiids and campanulids (introduced by Bremer & al, 2002[?]). This too has already been done at the NCBI Taxonomy Browser.
3. It will assign an old fashioned rank. In this case the rank of class will be assigned to the seed plants Spermatopsida (cf ToL, which also uses this name).
4. it will recognize the ANITA group.

A taxobox could look like this

Guaiacum officinale
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
Class:	Spermatopsida, angiosperms, fabids
Order:	Zygophyllales
Family:	Zygophyllaceae
Genus:	Guaiacum
Binomial name
Guaiacum officinale

[Leaving out divisio for the moment, this might be what Mabberley will use for the vascular plants, likely Tracheophyta]

The above examples give the species names only once, rather than twice as in the example taxoboxes on the project page. I can think of no reason why the species name should be echoed. Brya 17:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Responses

1. I agree that species names should not be echoed.
2. I continue to disagree with Brya that only a published "top-to-bottom" classification counts as non-original-research. The type concept in botanical nomenclature assures continuity through the family level even when classifications are mixed, and even at the higher levels, where typification is not required, it still forms a framework. Nevertheless, I agree that a top-to-bottom classification provides a much better framework for an encyclopedia.
3. Including informal clades in a taxobox is inappropriate, since they are not governed by a code of nomenclature (and even if Phylocode were further along, combining it with ICBN nomenclature is probably not a good idea). There is no basis to know from the term "eudicots" whether any given organism is included, whereas "Magnoliopsida" at least can be expected to include Magnolia, and "Magnoliaceae" definitely will.

I would support either switching to the Mabberley system, or else eliminating everything between regnum and familia in the taxobox (I'm not too happy about regnum, but it's nice to know it's a plant without having to recognize the green). The latter case could be justified by each family article already having a disussion of its taxonomy in different classifications.--Curtis Clark 18:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• I also agree about not echoing the species... actually, it might not even need to be both on the top and bottom of the box as in this example, unless the authorities can't appear at the top.
• I like having the higher taxon there, as it seems a much neater way to place a plant than oing it "longhand" in the article text.
• Still not fond of the italics in the higher taxon. SB Johnny 20:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The top of the box can as easily contain a common name, if that is the name of the article. I agree about not italicizing higher taxa, mainly because I've spent several decades not doing it.--Curtis Clark 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, including informal clade names would indeed represent a breach with wikipedia tradition. On the other hand these informal names are true scientific names in that they do represent scientific insight. They are highly useful as labels (quite unambigous actually, for the moment at least, they may wear out). A name like Magnoliopsida can mean anything, and its meaning will vary from book to book. Clearly, it also is not true that a family name will include the genus for which it is named: Fabaceae has no genus Faba. Brya 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Fabaceae does have a genus Faba, it is a validly published name by Philip Miller, which just happens to be synonymised with Vicia in most modern classifications. If Vicia faba turned out not to be so closely related to other Vicia spp., then Faba could be resurrected as an accepted genus - MPF 22:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Faba is not a genus, but a generic name, something else entirely. There are lots of names of families that are not based on a current genus, and some of them could never be used without drastic measures being taken. Conservation only enters into it when the generic name is illegitimate. Brya 14:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As indicated earlier, I would be happy to drop anything above order, but then it is only a small extra step to dropping the taxobox entirely. It could be replaced by a colorful icon "flowering plant" (when no real picture is available), which would also be fine with me. Brya 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• The name Fabaceae is conserved (most family names are, as it turns out); the type is Vicia faba.
• Two basic principle of nomenclature are that taxa have circumscription–scientific opinion establishes group membership–but that names are anchored to indivisual specimens–the type concept. Circumscription is determined by the classifier, but typification is governed by the rules of nomenclature. The informal clases of APG II are circumscribed, but they are not typified, since they are not part of a formal system of nomenclature. I can be confident that, no matter how differently two botanists circumscribe the Fabaceae, both circumscriptions will include Vicia faba. I have no such assurance for "euasterids I": the two circumscriptions might have no species in common. I'm not saying that Linnaean taxa are especially informative in regard to circumscription (they aren't), but informal clades lose the typification as well.--Curtis Clark 19:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of principle this is true. However, names have a lifecycle as well, and for as long as rosids are new and shiny they are unambiguous, while Magnoliopsida is so worn out that it may mean anything (even although it will include Magnolia). Do remember that Magnolia virginiana, Magnolia, Magnolioideae, Magnoliaceae, Magnoliales, Magnoliidae, Magnoliopsida, Magnoliophyta (not to mention many more names) all have the same type, so indicating the type is not saying much. Brya 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sunflower
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
Division:	Magnoliophyta
(unranked):	Eudicots, Asterids
Order:	Asterales
Family:	Asteraceae
Genus:	Helianthus
Species:	H. annuus L.

Sunflower
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
Division:	Tracheophyta
Class:	Spermatopsida
(unranked):	Eudicots, Asterids
Order:	Asterales
Family:	Asteraceae
Genus:	Helianthus
Species:	H. annuus L.

Clade names aren't preferrable to ranked names, but in cases where the latter don't exist they can be helpful. If we put all the angiosperm and gymnosperm orders in a single class, it would be nice to have some indication of what subgroup they fit into, at least to the level of magnoliids-monocots-eudicots-etc. Those groups can be replaced with formal subclasses when botanists adopt them. In the mean time, there is a way to clearly mark them as unranked, as shown at right.

All taxonomy has controversies and all taxoboxes should be understood as typical, not definitive, classifications. I don't think the situation for angiosperms is so uniquely poor that nothing can be given above order, and in my experience that would only invite 'repair' by well-meaning editors. We just have to make sure that what we list is a good representative and discuss alternatives in the articles.

If Tracheophyta, Spermatopsida is likely to become a standard of sorts we should use it, although I still don't see what's so bad about Magnoliophyta, a meaningful and well-recognized group retained by things like AP-web. As for repeating species names, that was never strongly supported, but the species name should go in the placement section to parallel genera on genus pages, etc. It would be better to omit the binomial section.

Note I don't normally edit the plant articles, but I have used them for quick reference, so they are important to me. Anyways, would either of the taxoboxes shown be at least a step in the right direction? Josh

At last! Some formal proposals to get the taxoboxes sorted. My inclination would be to use the Mabberley classification as that looks likely to get widely accepted, though doing so would unfortunately impose a delay as we couldn't introduce it until the new edition is published (anyone know when it is due out?). I'd agree with Curtis that names in taxoboxes should preferably only be ranked names validly published under the ICBN; clades are not really suitable (least of all awful contrivances like 'eurosids', which looks like a group of people from Europe named Sid). Is Mabberley expected to include higher ranks above order? - presumably someone must be working out what old published names (there's plenty of them!) can be applied, e.g. the eudicots would presumably be assignable to class Rosopsida). Maybe they could be added later as and when the APG and/or other workers get them sussed. I would certainly find it useful to include higher ranks

The comments by Josh pretty much hit the target. APG does not use ranks above order, and for very good reasons. The point of a name is that it must help in communication, and be as unambiguous as possible. The new names now in use by APG serve this purpose admirably and will likely continue in use. Trying to force formal names (under the ICBN) into this would only create hopeless confusion and APG is very unlikely to ruin a good thing. The only thing that apparently is rather unpopular is eurosids I and its three brothers, which very much are an aquired taste and not user-friendly (a hyphen might have helped).

This of course is why Mabberley left well enough alone, and assigned Spermatopsida at the rank of class: this leaves everything used by APG intact. The only names he replaces are eurosids I and its three brothers, for which user friendly alternatives exist. The name Magnoliophyta was not a big problem, but it was not very helpful either (of course Magnoliopsida was utterly impossible).

The second taxobox by Josh is pretty much what Mabberley has in mind. Some practical points:

1. No, I don't know when the book is going to be published. IIRC it is now two months overdue from its original publication date, but it is a pretty massive project.
2. I does not look like a bot will be able do all this, as the taxoboxes would have to be sorted into new groups, and this may be practical for the bigger orders only. It is quite likely to be more efficient to do it manually for small groups of taxaboxes. Brya 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Until the new taxobox structure is agreed, I would say that all taxoboxes not matching the current style should be restored to the current style, even though that is wrong under APG, etc. This is important because changing to the new style will be done by a robot editor, and a robot editor will likely not pick up variant style boxes, or if it does, will not edit them correctly, leaving orphan lines, etc.

On dropping the line "Species: G. thingy", I'd agree this is a good idea, though for conformity before doing so, it should really be agreed with the other groups on WP:TOL (animals, fungi, etc), as having the line was introduced by consensus there. I'd suspect gaining a new agreement to remove it wouldn't be a big task, though (if I remember rightly, it was only added by a fairly small majority).

On italicising higher ranks, I don't have any very strong feelings either way, a weak preference for the traditional style (as it's what I've been brought up with) but I'm open to reasoning for change to all italics. What I do consider very important though, is that whatever we vote to do, we must all agree to abide by the results of that vote and be consistent across all plant pages; having different italicisation on different pages is confusing for readers and not good for wikipedia overall (which is why I have been so adamant in retaining the current status quo on a number of pages).

MPF 22:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the last comments by MPF. On the other hand, Brya has also raised good points. It is quite normal that he doesn’t like the present taxoboxes. First, they don’t fit with a cladistic tree. And secondly, they are sort of original research, as they don’t quite fit in the APG II-system. However, taxonomy is constantly changing. APG II is only an intermediate stage, as mentioned already by Brya. We must then ask ourselves, how does this discussion fit into the Wikipedia-concept ? Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, directed at the general reader and not at the hyperspecialist. Anyone with some botanical notions will be somewhat familiar with the Linnaean taxonomy, but eurosids et al. will sound totally unfamiliar to most. Therefore I propose to retain the system as it is : we continue using the taxoboxes in their present form (except for the species-template, but that’s another discussion). The cladistic view can easily be explained in the article under the heading ==Taxonomy==. This way, the general reader and the specialist will be satisfied. This whole discussion can then be raised again in a couple of years when taxonomists will hopefully have agreed on one final (?) system. MPF and Brya are both respected and valuable contributors. Let them shake (virtual) hands and let’s go on with our task. JoJan 14:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia accessible to the general public. Whenever possible it should avoid unnecessary confusion. It is hard to imagine anything that would be as confusing as the present plant taxoboxes. Abolishing taxoboxes is preferable to maintaining them as they are now, just so as to stop them from causing confusion. Brya 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)