Talk:Type (botany)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Well, this is not a good development, MrDarwin. It used to be so that you did your thinking before editting. Also your edits used to take the facts into consideration.

Ah Brya, I had forgotten how cooperative you are and how delightful to work with. It was most generous of you to give me a whole 15 minutes to respond to your comments before you entirely deleted my additions to the article. I have added my own comments, indented under yours and Curtis's, below. MrDarwin 03:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, however much time I spent, it was wasted if it does not make you think on what you want to achieve, or make you consider what you actually are doing. I may note that your conduct here compares poorly with that of Berton in the matter of Malvaceae. Brya

I had supposed that after being exposed to MPF and the horrific proportion of error he makes I would be inured to even the worst errors. However you are really achieving a rate of error (in so few sentences!) that is appalling. Lets look at this:

• a specimen (a real plant, a part of a plant or a lot of small plants), which is dead, preserved, and safely stored in a herbarium (or the equivalent for fungi)
  • Your "preserved" is pretty much an equivalent of "safely stored" and thus redundant. Also, it suggests a precision which is not here.
    • Having actually worked as a plant taxonomist, I can assure you that "preserved" is in no sense the equivalent of "safely stored". It's not called "curation" for nothing, and I have seen the insect-eaten exsiccatae and shriveled once-stored-in-ethanol-that-has-now-evaporated specimens to prove it.--Curtis Clark 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • • Well, clearly those "the insect-eaten exsiccatae and shriveled once-stored-in-ethanol-that-has-now-evaporated specimens" were not "safely stored", but unsafely. Unless you want to go into genuine detail "preserved", "safely stored" and "curated" are equivalent terms, with "safely stored" being the most accessible and unambiguous. "Preserved" suggests they have been canned.
      • I have little to add here, except to note that Brya has not identified or corrected any error. MrDarwin 03:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Such specimens are usually pressed, dried, and mounted on herbarium sheets, but sometimes are pickled in alcohol or other liquid preservative.
  • I am a very easygoing person, always erring in favor of kindnes, so I left this in, last time round. I should not have. This is bad, really bad. The Code bends over backwards to avoid prescribing the form of a specimen. It very carefully defers to herbarium practice: a specimen is whatever a herbarium curates as such, using whatever techniques that herbarium sees fit. You are going directly against the Code here. Also, out of the dozen or so forms a specimen may take the two forms you mention here may be the two most popular (I don't really believe this, more likely two out of the top five), but it is highly misleading to pretend this is a delimitive summation.
    • Unless I'm totally losing comprehension, the title of the article is Type (botany), not Type specimens in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Just as a parliamentary body is far more complex and nuanced than just Robert's Rules of Order, so is there more to practice in botanical taxonomy and nomenclature than the ICBN, and in fact it is the existence of this practice that requires there to be a code of nomenclature to, uh, codify it. And I don't see "usually" as a delimitive summation.--Curtis Clark 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • • On the matter of specimens, yes, this article is not on "specimens" and the insertion of random items of opinion on specimens is not helpful here. Clearly the word "usually" is not a delimitive summation. However the construction "Usually ..., but sometimes ..." represents a closed universe, and thus a delimitive summation, and thus patently untrue. Brya
      • As Curtis notes, there is far more to the practice of systematic botany than the Code itself. Just because the Code does not describe the various forms a specimen may take does not mean that I may not for the purposes of this article, or that readers of this article will not find such descriptions helpful. I try to accompany plain-English explanations of technical concepts with concrete examples for the non-botanists who are looking to Wikipedia for information. Not all users will know what a "specimen" is or what form is might take. Perhaps I sometimes word those explanations and examples badly, but I don't think my additions generally deserve to be summarily and entirely deleted, especially when Brya cannot demonstrate that they are erroneous. MrDarwin 03:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I disagree on both counts. If you feel it is so important what constitutes a "specimen" why not start a separate article on this, instead of trying to force your PoV into this article? If you had added an example it might have been differently. Instead you misdefined it as badly as can be, just trying to pander to the popular misconception. Although providing misinformation-in-easy-to-understand-words may give the reader the feeling he has understood the matter, in actuality it has only left him misinformed. Brya
• a drawing, painting, photograph, or other depiction of a plant or part of a plant
  • "photograph" No doubt it is no problem for you to cite the dozen or so cases where a photograph was used as a type, that would be required for this to be worth mentioning?
    • So you are not disputing that it is true? I find it odd that Brya objects to, and deletes, factual information without identifying it as an error. MrDarwin 03:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I am just making a sarcastic remark, pointing out that this is a complete red herring.Brya
  • "a plant or part of a plant". Pretty much without exception an illustration will never present an entire plant. Firstly, one would need to dig it out, secondly this would have to be done with impossible care so as not to lose part of the root system. Thirdly only a very small minority of plants is of a size to fit in an illustration. The entire point is that a part of the plant can be drawn (etc) that will give a typical view of the plant, i.e. depict the plant.
    • A drawing of Wolffia could easily be of the entire plant. Would it be more accurate to say "a part of a plant or an entire plant"?--Curtis Clark 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • • I realize that, which is why I said "pretty much without exception", which allows for some exceptions. Brya
      • In reality, many type illustrations depict the whole plant, roots and all, particularly (but far from exclusively) plants with bulbs, corms, tubers, rhizomes, or other underground organs (perhaps Brya is quibbling that a root or two may have been dislodged in the digging?). Again, Brya has not identified or corrected any error and I am left wondering just how many type illustrations Brya has dealt with. MrDarwin 03:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
        • For somebody who is making a big thing about the distinction between whole "plants" versus "plant parts" you are very dismissive about having the entire "whole plant". And how many of those illustrations that show a "whole plant" represent the entire actual plant they were drawn from, rather than a representative selection? Brya
• "... accompanying the original description but sometimes the original drawing, painting, etc. or an illustration cited from an earlier reference."
  • So, it accompanies the original description or it does not accompany the original description. "Did it rain yesterday?" "It either rained yesterday or it did not rain yesterday". Unless the purpose is to pad the text with meaningless patter this is plain silly, at best.

I have no idea how to even begin to respond to Brya's comments here. Are we both speaking the same language?? Or is it simply that Brya conveniently left out a critical part of the sentence in order to ridicule me? MrDarwin 03:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• • At the risk of being facetious let me summarize:
    1. I am citing a sentence you wrote
    2. You think this is gibberish
    3. Thus we are in agreement: your sentence is gibberish. Brya
• "cited from an earlier reference."
  • "earlier": there is nothing whatsoever in the Code that says an illustration not accompanying the original description must predate that original description. Nor is there anything that requires the illustration to be in a reference. This part turns what would otherwise be meaningless patter in a misleading statement.
    • The code perhaps does not prohibit using an illustration from a later reference, but commonly understood causality almost certainly does. Clumsy wording is merely that.--Curtis Clark 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, clumsy wording may only be that, but it does not mean that it should be inserted here, there and everywhere. Brya
      • In practice, type illustrations (with possible rare exceptions like neotypes) will nearly always either accompany the protologue or be referenced from an earlier publication. I suppose that Brya can cite the dozen or so cases where a type illustration (other than an neotype) postdates the protologue? If the information is factual but poorly worded, please don't just delete it. MrDarwin 03:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
        • This is utter and complete nonsense! It is (just about) impossible for a type illustration to accompany the protologue (I would not know of an exception, but in botany there are few absolutes). A type illustration will be part of the protologue or it will not be connected to the original publication of the name. If it is part of the protologue it may or may not accompany the original description, this is immaterial (just like the relative dates of publication of both). Brya
• The current Code allows that a type "may be an illustration if, and only if, it is impossible to preserve a specimen" (Art. 37.4) but many older names are typified by illustrations instead of, or in addition to, preserved specimens.
  • I referred to Art 37.4 in its proper context, but you are citing a part of it badly out of context (in two respects). This is a disqualifying error: you need to apologize here. A name published yesterday may be based on an illustration, this is pure routine.
    • Names older than 1958-01-01 have less strigent requirements for publication, so the statement is effectively true.--Curtis Clark 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • No, it may be true in a specific context (for a limited number of taxa in a limited time period) but it not generally true. Deliberately citing it out of the context is misleading. To all appearances there is an intent to deceive here. Brya
      • I'm afraid no apology is forthcoming. I read Art. 37.4 to indicate that, under the current Code, using illustrations as types in the validation of new names is discouraged (didn't one of Brya's own edits say as much?) but allowed under certain circumstances. I am willing to admit that I may be interpreting this article wrongly, in which case I eagerly await Brya's alternative explanation. MrDarwin 03:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
        • • It is up to you to decide if you do apologize. But it is a disqualifying matter. Brya

Please get in focus, do read and think before editing! Brya 18:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Brya, once again you have focused on minutia and missed gaping holes. What about isotypes, syntypes, lectotypes, and neotypes? There are some important concepts there that none of the editors have addressed. What of mixed type collections? What about practice in curation of types (the Code is not explicit, but the history is there)? And there should be references to typification with respect to nomeclatural and taxonomic synonyms.

I'd fix some of these things, but it's not worth the effort if it will just be reverted.--Curtis Clark 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, I am focusing on the big issues, leaving the minutiae for later. I feel that the readers of wikipedia deserve to be informed what a type is in botany and what function it serves. This is opposed by MrDarwin who wants the ... well, the opposite? Indeed, isotypes, syntypes, lectotypes, and neotypes do exist, but I have not the least intent to deal with them. Firstly, if a reader is interested in this level of detail he should go to more authoritative sources, starting with the ICBN. Secondly, no page in wikipedia that exceed three or four lines apparently succeeds in escaping from 'editing' by somebody inserting his pet notions into this. Starting pages on such items (isotypes, syntypes, lectotypes, and neotypes, etc) is courting disaster. Brya

While we're talking about what's in the Code and what isn't, Brya seems to have thrown in a few red herrings of his/her own. I have been searching the Code for any suggestion that a type illustration is "a detailed picture of something that can be seen only through a microscope. A tiny 'plant' on a microscope slide makes for a poor type: the microscope slide may be lost or damaged, or it may be very difficult to find the 'plant' in question among whatever else is on the microscope slide." In fact types are very often mounted on microscope slides (e.g., diatoms), another preservation method that I suppose I should add, although I expect Brya will then object that I am imposing a further constraint where none exists. (Although the Code stipulates that illustrations are required for non-fossil algae, the specimen is still the type, not the illustration--see Art. 39.)

There is also nothing in the Code with regard to the color, or amount of detail, of a type illustration. If the illustration accompanied the protologue, and there was no explicit citation of a single specimen as the type, then that illustration is a type. In reality, type illustrations are often simple black-and-white drawings and many (especially older ones) are lamentably lacking in detail. Moreover, such illustrations were sometimes done by "devoted botanical artists", but in a great many cases were not; they were often line drawings prepared by the person describing the new species. (I would also note that there are still "devoted botanical artists" who are assigned to produce detailed illustrations; one of them works just a few doors down from me and would be surprised to see any implication that "there was a time" that is no longer.)

The bottom line is that, despite his comment that s/he was "correcting various factual errors", Brya has not demonstrated the factual error of any of my additions which s/he deleted. MrDarwin 03:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A few points worth commenting on:

• Adding the "a detailed picture of something that can be seen only through a microscope. A tiny 'plant' on a microscope slide makes for a poor type: the microscope slide may be lost or damaged, or it may be very difficult to find the 'plant' in question among whatever else is on the microscope slide." was indeed a tactical mistake as adding real information to wikipedia always proves to be. BTW: an inspection of Art 39 reveals nothing that bears on this: algae are not (necessarily) microscopic in nature.
• As concerns botanical artists it might have been better to say something about remuneration than devotion. All to often, today's botanical artist's time is so costly that it is reflected in the amount of detail of the illustration. Still, one of the reasons that an illustration by one of today's "devoted botanical artists" is not acceptable as a type, while illustrations of centuries gone are highly valued as types is the loving care devoted in great detail on such works of botanical art. So, perhaps it is true that not all older pictures are equally good, but on the whole I am amazed every time I open such a book. In this respect, botanical literature is still going downhill, a trend stopped only here and there by superior photography. Brya 19:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Brya, based on your latest comments, here and on Curtis Clark's talk page, I fear that you have come completely unhinged. MrDarwin 21:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Note to other editors: I've slept on it, cooled down a bit, and for the moment decided to put off attempting any further edits to this article. Brya may consider this acquiescence on my part but nothing could be further from the truth. My opinion is that Brya has produced an article that contains some valuable information but is incomplete, imperfect, and in some cases downright misleading. All of my honest attempts to add, improve, or clarify have been entirely deleted or reverted by Brya, generally with rude and insulting comments (see above). I would take it personally, but Brya has treated virtually every other Wikipedia editor to cross him/her with similar disdain and contempt. Anybody familiar with my editing history will know that I have generally been happy to explain my edits, to compromise and work with other editors to improve articles, and in some cases have even been willing to admit error. For this I have been labeled by Brya (of all people) as "dishonest", "vicious", and "mean". If I have been rude or insulting myself, it is because I can only take so much abuse before losing my own temper. My "POV", as Brya has labeled it, has always been to provide information that is factual, pertinent, and useful to those Wikipedia users who may come here looking for information without already being intimately familiar with the subject of a particular article. Unfortunately, it is apparent that Brya considers this article to be personal property and that it exists in some ideal form inside Brya's head that none of us can hope to comprehend. In lieu of being permitted to make any further additions or changes to this article without their immediate deletion or reversion by Brya, I have attached a POV flag. Perhaps somebody else will have more luck. MrDarwin 14:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's true

He does own the article.--Curtis Clark 04:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nothingbutism

A botanical name, by itself, is only a phrase (of one to three words). For a name to be meaningful it is necessary to be sure what it applies to.

This article's introduction (above) is the one of the most meaningless introductions to an article I have ever read. It's up there with:

... is a word used in two major sets of ways, which are inter-connected in a complex way, for reasons related to the history of science and metaphysics, particularly in Western Civilization.

—Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 22:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)