Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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
13	2006-11 – 2007-01	Biographies needed; common names; APG and taxoboxes; species templates; image quality; microformat

Contents 1 Original Research 2 Solutions?

[edit] Original Research

I want to address the conception that using pieces from different classifications is somehow original reseach. I've done enough original research to have a good idea of what it is, and most cases of combining classifications don't qualify.

Consider Encelia densifolia C. Clark & Kyhos. The original publication places the species in Encelia and in the Asteraceae. It was published in a refereed journal and is thus fair game to be included in Wikipedia.

But Art Cronquist didn't include E. densifolia in either the Asteraceae or in Encelia: The species was not yet named when he wrote his book. It was named by the time of APG II, but it was not one of the species used in the molecular analyses that support the bulk of that classification.

Is it original research to assign E. densifolia in Wikipedia to either Encelia or Asteraceae? Let's assume that Wikipedia was still using the Cronquist system. Cronquist includes the Asteraceae, and I believe his list of genera included Encelia, but all we are sure that means is that it includes E. canescens, the type species of Encelia. The original research of Clark and Kyhos placed E. densifolia in Encelia, the original research of Cronquist placed Encelia in an overall classification. Is combining the two in Wikipedia thus original research?

Let's consider Acer macrophyllum. Once a member of the Aceraceae, APG II shows that its genus instead belongs in the Sapindaceae. Cronquist (iirc) places the Sapindaceae in the Sapindales. Is it original research to assign Acer to the Sapindales?

My third example is "Penstemon palmeri". APG assigns its genus to the Plantaginaceae, and that family to the Lamiales. Cronquist assigns the Lamiales to the Magnoliopsida. Is placing Penstemon in the Magnoliopsida original research?

The photo of Penstemon palmeri used in the article was taken by Stan Shebs in Red Rock Canyon, Nevada. There is no indication that the plant in question was substantiated as P. palmeri in a refereed journal. There is not even an indication that a voucher specimen was deposited in a herbarium. Is it original research to call that photo Penstemon palmeri rather than unknown organism?

My point here is that the everyday activities of working with biological classifications require assigning organisms based on the judgment of the person working with them. Taxonomic treatises almost never include exhaustive lists of specimens, and even when they do, those specimens are the ones residing in museums at the time. And no single published classification even includes all the species known at the time (unless you combine and count Systema Naturae and Species Plantarum). The Wikipedia prohibition of original research is a good one, but to over-apply it to articles about taxa will inevitably result in harm.--Curtis Clark 18:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the notion of "original research" should not be stretched to the extreme. The problems with the examples, mentioned above, can easily be addressed in the article in question, if the author wishes so. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal written for hyperspecialists. We have to deal with the general public, young and old, knowing well or hardly knowing the stuff we write about. Therefore it is not advised to jettison the taxoboxes, a system we have agreed upon, and replace it with a taxonomic system that isn't stable yet. As I said before, let's wait and see. We can resume this discussion in a couple of years. JoJan 19:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite. First let me make the distinction between what a taxonomist may do (original research required, that is in the job description) and writing a wikipedia article (no original research allowed). However, it looks to me as if the three examples are pretty clear:

1. In the case of Encelia densifolia C.Clark & Kyhos there is a published decision to place this species in the genus Encelia (publication presumably by C. Clark & Kyhos, unless authorship of the name is different from that of the name). So it is entirely uncontroversial to mention this species in a treatment of Encelia on wikipedia. No explicit action or decision is required, other than writing a wikipedia entry.
2. Acer macrophyllum. It is well documented in the real literature that this species exists. The publications by APG are very explicit in that they regard Aceraceae as a synonym of Sapindaceae (that is they include all members of the family Aceraceae in the family Sapindaceae and in the order Sapindales). No original research whatsoever. No explicit action or decision is required, other than writing a wikipedia entry. BTW it is a far stretch to say that "APG II shows that its genus instead belongs in the Sapindaceae": I spend quite a bit of time tracking down the evidence, and this is thin as cigarette paper. APG made the decision to join these families, but the best that can be said is that this is one possible interpretation of the evidence.
3. Penstemon palmeri. I assume it is well documented that the species exists and that its placement to the ordinal level is unproblematic. The APG has assigned this order to the euasterids I (named lamiids by a sub-group of APG) which in turn is placed in the asterids, which is placed in the eudicots. A decision to place this in say Magnoliophyta is skating on thin ice, as original research is involved here too but a case could be made for it. This is because Magnoliophyta sensu Cronquist is well-known as a name for the angiosperms, which are named "angiosperms" by APG, so the two names refer to a group that in outline is the same. I would definitely not be in favor of this as Magnoliophyta sensu Cronquist and "angiosperms" sensu APG have an entirely different internal taxonomy, thus making it confusing to use these names as being interchangeable. Assigning Penstemon palmeri sensu APG to Magnoliopsida sensu Cronquist is out-and-out original research as APG has made it abundantly clear that Magnoliopsida sensu Cronquist is not only not a taxon in the APG universe, but that it cannot be a taxon in the APG universe. This is one of the fundamental results of APG. Also see the above example:

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 may be other, less kind, qualifications for the act of placing Penstemon palmeri sensu APG in Magnoliopsida sensu Cronquist. But certainly it is original research (at the least). Brya 16:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You have stated your point with a watertight reasoning. The only conclusion is that you would propose a cladistic tree instead of the familiar taxobox. But in my opinion, this would scare off the many readers unfamiliar with this concept. This cannot be our goal. And there is another problem : all the examples you’re giving are at the binomial level. But when one wants to describe a genus, one has to give a list of species as well. In a cladistic perspective, one has to give then the relationships between these species (A is a sister to ….). This would complicate enormously the writing of such an article. Furthermore, the relationships between most species have not been described yet and it will take a very long time to do so. And when they have already been described, only a limited number of species of a genus has been chosen to represent a sample of the genus. A limited number of such cladistic trees have already been published in botany journals, protected as such by copyright laws. This means that such a reasoning doesn’t advance us at all. Your reasoning is watertight, but applying this concept would, at this moment, be adverse to this project. As I stated before, let’s keep things as they are (with taxoboxes and eventually a cladistic description in the article) and review this situation in another couple of years. JoJan 17:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

JoJan, most biologists currently agree that a correct taxonomy should reflect the underlying phylogenetic relationships. It doesn't have to express every aspect of the tree, but it should be consistent with its general form. Classifications that are not are obsolete, i.e. incorrect. I don't think retaining the classes Magnoliopsida and Liliopsida above APG is original research, but it's fair to say they're now generally considered incorrect, so we shouldn't be using them. Right now the taxoboxes are full of mistakes.

It seems to me that the simplest thing to do would be to replace incorrect parts of the taxobox with the corresponding unranked groups - Liliopsida with monocots, Magnoliopsida with eudicots, magnoliids, or whatever is appropriate. That would remove any inaccuracies, after which we'd be at leisure to wait for a better scheme to be published. See the sunflower boxes I added above for examples.

Somebody will have to explain to me why replacing them with something like "unranked: eudicots" is so confusing. The eudicots are a well-known group that tells you a fair bit about the plants in question. Specialists will be familiar with using them, and to non-specialists they'll be a lot more meaningful than something like subclass Hamamelidae ever was. It just so happens this widely-accepted group doesn't have a widely-accepted formal name yet. That doesn't stop professionals or amateurs from using it. There's a reason the taxoboxes allow unranked groups. Josh

Some points:

• I would definitely not be in favor of this as Magnoliophyta sensu Cronquist and "angiosperms" sensu APG have an entirely different internal taxonomy, thus making it confusing to use these names as being interchangeable. This again confuses names and taxa. Plantaginaceae sensu Cronquist and Plantaginaceae sensu APG have not only different internal taxonomies, they have different circumscriptions (something which is not true of Magnoliophyta and angiosperms), and yet APG didn't change the name (couldn't, in fact, according to ICBN, although there is still some controversy about the correct family name for that group).

No, names and taxa are clearly separate. Formal names are governed by the ICBN. This means that when a taxonomist describes a taxon and is looking for the correct name he has to follow the ICBN. However, when a taxonomist (re)describes a taxon and applies the correct name to it he is not only engaged in original research but he creates a 'new' and recognisable unit. Plantaginaceae sensu Cronquist and Plantaginaceae sensu APG are quite different and when speaking of them a degree of care is needed, otherwise hopeless confusion will ensue. In view of the 'no original research' policy it would be wrong to create a Plantaginaceae sensu wikipedia with yet a new (supposedly superior) circumscription. This is irrespective of the availability of the name Plantaginaceae (it is validly published), but creating a new taxon, or giving a new formal name to an existing taxon is original research. Brya 15:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have pointed out repeatedly, the simple act of working with biological names requires independent circumscription, and Wikipedia is necessarily home to a lot of it. But in the case of angiosperms and Magnoliophyta, the circumscriptions are exactly the same. I challenge anyone to provide citations from books or journals from the last 30 years that show different circumscriptions for any taxon named Magnoliophyta, Anthophyta, Angiospermophyta, angiosperms, or flowering plants. All those names are singulary unambiguous with respect to group membership, and are identical.--Curtis Clark 17:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I have pointed out repeatedly "independent circumscription" is something that wikipedia should shy away from. As to "Magnoliophyta, Anthophyta, Angiospermophyta, angiosperms, or flowering plants": the last two are indeed unambiguous; I cannot say I have ever heard of Angiospermophyta; Anthophyta has two circumscriptions although I am not sure of the extent of how and when they were used; Magnoliophyta has at least two popular circumscriptions, both of which were in recent use. Brya 16:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I was going to add {{fact}}, but I decided that was rude. I am interested to know what these alternate circumscriptions are.--Curtis Clark 16:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, both the Dahlgren system and the earlier versions of the Thorne system use Magnoliopsida for the angiosperms (with Magnoliidae for dicots and Liliidae for monocots) and Magnoliophyta for a higher ranked taxon (presumably the seed plants, but who cares).

Oh, yeah, duh. Rank changes. I even knew of the old Thorne system, back in the days when everyone encouraged him to publish, and his stock answer was "it will never be finished!"--Curtis Clark 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The official flora here, before it switched to APG, used the Cronquist system but had bumped up all the higher level taxa one rank, leading to the same result. Brya 14:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that original research? :-)--Curtis Clark 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but they are allowed (and required) to do so. Brya 16:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• ...APG has made it abundantly clear that Magnoliopsida sensu Cronquist is not only not a taxon in the APG universe, but that it cannot be a taxon in the APG universe. Scrophulariaceae sensu Cronquist is not a taxon in the APG universe, and yet Scrophulariaceae exists as a name in the APG classification. Anyone with any knowledge of angiosperms can see that the only Cronquist Class that can accomodate the Lamiales is the Magnoliopsida. This is independent of (a) whether it is a good idea to recognize the dicots (I of course contend that it isn't), and what a taxon called "Magnoliopsida" would contain in an APG universe (probably only the Magnoliales). Just because something is a bad idea, that doesn't make it original research.

Well, Scrophulariaceae sensu Cronquist and Scrophulariaceae sensu APG do both exist. They are not the same. Magnoliopsida sensu APG does not exist. Creating a Magnoliopsida sensu APG just for the sake of taxoboxes is original research as well as a bad idea. Brya 15:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bad idea. Considering what "Magnoliopsida sensu APG" might mean, I don't think it's good enough to be original research. :-) --Curtis Clark 17:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• A limited number of such cladistic trees have already been published in botany journals, protected as such by copyright laws. I agree about the limited number. On the other hand, data are not subject to copyright, and trees are data. (An individual depiction of a tree is subject to copyright.)

There is a pretty overwhelming number of trees published. Part of the trouble is that they are not directly comparable. A tree is only as good as the data that went into it. You have to check every time what a tree is based on. Brya 15:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It only seems overwhelming if you don't consider all the species that don't have published trees. I agree about the rest.--Curtis Clark 17:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The number is overwhelming to me. Of course there are many taxa for which no trees were published. But anyway there are many species (and other taxa) indeed that are not known beyond the type collection, and which are very poorly described in all respects. There is a mind-boggling number of species out there, for which an overwhelming number of trees has been published. Much too much for me to contain. Brya 16:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think retaining the classes Magnoliopsida and Liliopsida above APG is original research, but it's fair to say they're now generally considered incorrect, so we shouldn't be using them. The Liliopsida (monocots) in virtually every recent classification constitute a clade.
• Right now the taxoboxes are full of mistakes. Agreed.
• Somebody will have to explain to me why replacing them with something like "unranked: eudicots" is so confusing. The eudicots are a well-known group that tells you a fair bit about the plants in question. Two points: (1) Most non-systematists won't have a clue as to what that means, and (2) "eudicot" is as effectively a common name as blue dicks or hackberry. If it's worth using, it's worth formalizing, IMO (AFAIK it has not been formalized under Phylocode either).
• It just so happens this widely-accepted group doesn't have a widely-accepted formal name yet. I favor Cannabinopsida. :-)

I agree with Josh that common names are easier. Formal names have limited utility. It is not an exception at all to find a botany or taxonomy textbook that refuses to use formal names for higher ranks: this is just confusing. The seed plants are the seed plants, no matter which formal name is attached to them. I have never seen a name above the rank of order (descriptive names excepted) that was not more hindrance than help.

To the limited extent that I see your point, this argues for eliminating the classification above Familia in the taxobox.--Curtis Clark 17:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would not be against replacing all names in the taxobox above the level of order by 'common names' (or leaving them out alltogether. Brya 16:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out here that the adjective dicotyledonous is now shifting in meaning, and is beginning to mean "pertaining to the eudicots" rather than "pertaining to the dicots".Brya 15:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This is just silly. "Dicotyledonous" has a perfectly good descriptive meaning: the plesiomorphic cotyledon number of the seed plants. Ginkgoes and Welwitschia are neither "dicots" nor "eudicots", despite their cotyledon numbers, and I'll be thrilled when the only cotyledon number that is ever held important for the flowering plants is "1".--Curtis Clark 17:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Language is the way it is. There are many words in common usage that are a far cry from their original meaning. The adjective "dicotyledonous" was used like "annonaceous", that is pertaining to a particular taxonomic group. It has always been hard enough to explain that "dicots" does not refer to a plant with two cotyledons, but to a member of a taxonomic group (of course it was worse for monocots). Brya 16:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In what way was it worse for monocots? It's not unusual to refer to groups by diagnostic synapomorphies, e.g. "seed plants".--Curtis Clark 16:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the percentage of "dicots" with two cotyledons is much higher that the number of monocots with one 'cotyledon'. Brya 14:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify. I know of monocots with no cotyledons (and tetrapods with no legs), and I know that there has been disagreement about homology, especially in grasses (although it seems clear-cut to me), but I know of none with two or more cotyledons.--Curtis Clark 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case I don't see your problem. Nobody would describe a snake as a four-legged creature. Brya 16:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood; I thought you were the one in favor of descriptive (rather than type-based) names for higher taxa.--Curtis Clark 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I am in favor of descriptive names, whether in the sense of Art 16.1.b or in the sense of APG. However even a descriptive name is a name (just a label) and not a definition that has to be met by each and every member of the group. Both Monocotyledones and "monocots" are very useful and unambiguous names, and this is not lessened all that much by the fact that very many members of this group do not live up to this feature of one cotyledon per seed. It will be interesting to see if the adjective "dicotyledonous" does really shift to a new taxonomic group, now that the old group is no longer accepted. Theoretically it is possible that the name Dicotyledones in future will be applied to the eudicots, although I don't expect this to happen. Brya 16:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

At that point, I was coming to believe that eliminating the taxoboxes was the best solution, but now I'm thinking eliminate ranks above family.--Curtis Clark 21:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much that taxoboxes are unworkable, but that there are ranks for which the the situation is not easily summarized by a single name. Why not just eliminate those ranks, and/or replace them with a "see text" or "see link" snippet that explains the situation? Personally, 99% of my taxobox jumps are species<->genus<->family anyway, if the higher links went away I would hardly notice. The toplevel link to "plant" is still undisputed too, right? :-) That's always handy for absolute beginners happening on a page. Stan 21:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, mostly it is just the family or the order that is important. Dropping a rank (or two) from the taxobox is preferable to the present situation. However it is not so that the situation cannot be summarized by a single word: it can. It is just that this single word is unpopular. Brya 15:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solutions?

Dropping the taxoboxes is over-reacting. The only major problem is that the Magnoliopsida-Liliopsida split we use is obsolete, so we simply have to correct that. There are two ways we could go: we could replace them with their unranked equivalents or we could drop the information from the box. At the moment either is an improvement, so just to get something done, perhaps we should vote on it.

There are two other things to decide that aren't quite as pressing, but it might not hurt to get a sense where people everyone stands. That is, I'm not claiming these are formal votes, but if there's a definite consensus we may as well stick with it. Josh

Informal groups in the taxobox:

• We should include key groups even if they haven't been formalized yet.
  • Josh; there's no way most non-systematists find common names more confusing.
  • Brya 15:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC); clearly I am in favor of this

• We should leave out groups that are not validly published.
  • Curtis Clark 05:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC); support—in my experience, non-systematists only think they understand common names better, and it sends the wrong message to say that an informal group is as good as a published taxon. The APG names are unambiguous in the context of the presented research, but they are not exhaustively enumerated; assigning additional taxa to them could be considered original research.
  • Brya 15:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC) oppose. I agree that there is a general underestimate by people of names and what they mean. However, the names of APG clades are singularly unambiguous

• We should not change the taxoboxes until a complete top-to-bottom classification is available.
  • Curtis Clark 05:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC); oppose—they are so inconsistent now that something needs to be done.
  • Brya 15:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC); oppose. We should make sure taxoboxes do not contain incorrect information, even if they are not complete.
  • SB Johnny 11:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC); better not to throw out the old mousetraps when the new ones aren't in production yet
  • Brya 15:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC); oppose. We should make sure taxoboxes do not contain incorrect information, even if they are not complete.

• We should emulate the taxoboxen used by German Wikipedia (see comments above)
  • Curtis Clark 05:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC); support—the Strasburger book is a standard classification in non-Anglophone Europe.
  • Brya 15:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC); oppose. It is hard enough to explain the differences between Cronquist and APG II, without involving yet a third system. I don't think it has merit anyway.

Listed divisions

• We should stick with division Magnoliophyta until a better system is published.
  • Josh; very mild preference.
  • Brya 15:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC); I will go along with that, until the book by Mabberley is published.
• We should switch to using division Tracheophyta, class Spermatopsida, which will probably be used by Mabberley.
• We should switch to Anthophyta because that's what many textbooks use.
  • Curtis Clark 05:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC); mildly support: it doesn't really matter what we call the clade of flowering plants, so we might as well go with something familiar to many users, and widely used in recent textbooks published in the United States.
  • Brya 15:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC); oppose. Angiospermae looks a better candidate.

Italics

• We should italicize all names following the ICBN regardless of rank.
• We should not italicize names above the rank of genus.
  • Josh; simply because it makes pages discussing multiple kingdoms harder to read.
  • Curtis Clark 05:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC); it also fits with common practice in texts and journals. But if the consensus was to italicize, I'd have no problem with that.
  • Cas Liber 09:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC) - never seen anyone italicize anything above genus.
  • SB Johnny 11:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC); Either switch them all, or leave them all. When the next change comes about it will be nice to use a bot as far as possible.
  • Stan 11:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC) ; animal kingdom isn't going to do it, freaky for readers and editors to have such a widespread but trivial difference. (Imagine the effect on articles that discuss both plants and animals, such as almost everything ecological)
  • NoahElhardt 00:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC) ; No need to fix something that ain't broken. There's plenty of bigger fish to fry, and people are generally used to the old system.