Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archives for WP:PLANTS edit
1 2004-10 – 2005-07 Ericales; example article; Orders; food/poison; plant stubs; monotypic genus redirects; cacti; Carex
2 2005-07 – 2005-11 Acer; peer review requests; common names; headers; WikiProject Fungi proposal; stub proposals
3 2005-11 – 2006-01 Hyphenated species names; common names; article titles; tropical fruits
4 2006-01 – 2006-03 silver leaf tree; flower resource; article content/taxonomy; Poa; Wikipedia 1.0 Project
5 2006-03 – 2006-05 APGII; template botanist; flora article; article titles; common names; synonyms
6 2006-05 Plant article naming conventions; common names; categories; NPOV
7 2006-05 – 2006-06 lists/categories; Cornus; tomatoes; Horticulture and Gardening WikiProject; FA candidates; hortibox; range maps; Trifolium
8 2006-06-28 userbox; project banner; plant infobox; naming conventions
9 2006-06-28 – 2006-06-29 Taxoboxes for flowering plants; APGII
10 2006-06 – 2006-07 Original research; taxoboxes; APGII; italics
11 2006-07 interwiki cleanup for moss; illustrations of plant articles
12 2006-07 – 2006-11 Maples; citrus; photos; flora common name convention; capitalization; Vinca minor

Contents


[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 :

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

iGuaiacum 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.

[edit] 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

iGuaiacum 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)

[edit] 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)
Conservation of family names happens for a lot of reasons. The point about the difference between txa and taxon names is a good one, but it seems to me that taxaboxes are as much about the names as they are the taxa.--Curtis Clark 17:23, 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)
Brya, I am astonished to find you arguing against the type concept, since it holds a much more important place in ICBN that italicizing higher taxon names. "Rosids" may be familiar, but they are in no sense unambiguous. It's important to distinguish familiarity from unambiguity (and circumscription from typification). I'll post in a bit about "original research" to expand upon this.--Curtis Clark 17:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
iSunflower
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Plantae
Division: Magnoliophyta
(unranked) Eudicots, Asterids
Order: Asterales
Family: Asteraceae
Genus: Helianthus
Species: H. annuus
L.
iSunflower
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Plantae
Division: Tracheophyta
Class: Spermatopsida
(unranked) Angiosperms, Eudicots
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)

[edit] German wikipedia

I just noticed that the German Wikipedia seems to have formal taxon names for clades (see Papaveraceae for example). Do any of you know what system they use? If not, I'll research it.--Curtis Clark 04:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The taxonomy above the ordinal level is evidently from Sitte, Peter; Weiler, Elmar W.; Kadereit, Joachim W.; Bresinsky, Andreas; Körner, Christian: Strasburger - Lehrbuch der Botanik für Hochschulen. 35. Aufl. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg 2002, ISBN 3-8274-1010-X. The whole classification is here. It's still not clear where they got such names as Rosopsida, though.--Curtis Clark 04:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the German wikipedia is using formal names. Apparently it is an amalgamation of Strasburger / APG II / AP-Website. I have been looking for a copy of Strasburger to get exact details, but this is not a popular book around here. On the whole it looks to be original research as well, but I have not enough hard facts to ascertain how bad it is. Brya 15:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I find it interesting that you refer to a book by some of Germany's top plant systematists as "bad". I, too, don't have the book at hand, but my impression from looking at the German Wikipedia is that Strasburger provides formal names for most of the supraordinal clades in APG II. The Strasburger classification seems to be in wide use in non-Anglophone Europe; it should be noted, though, that APG lists Rosopsida as a synonym of Rosales, and Reveal uses it for a group that others might call a subclass. There was also a lengthy discussion about Rosopsida on the TOL talk page.--Curtis Clark 17:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Clearly I made no comment regarding Strasburger, a book I have not even seen. The German wikipedia is using a system which is put together from three different sources, one of them a website that changes from day to day. There is almost certainly original research involved, but as I said I cannot judge to what degree until I see more detail. Brya 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Plants_Archive9_fa0a.html"