Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive12

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

Contents


[edit] Plant stub split

I've proposed a number of new stub types to try to deal with the very large size of the current category. If anyone has any thoughts on the utility of these, please do comment there. Alai

[edit] Expert needed: Anacharis

I've left a message here for the user who created Anacharis as a redirect to what I believe is an unrelated plant. Input from someone with a reliable reference would be much appreciated. Thanks, Tomertalk 19:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

According to ipni.org, Anacharis Rich. is a synonym of Elodea Michx., so that's where it should redirect. APNI states, 'Remarks: See comments by C.A.Weatherby "On the Nomenclature of Elodea" in Rhodora 34 (1932) 114-116, & Voss, Rhodora 68 (1966) 437 who state "Continued use of Anacharis instead of Elodea is incorrect."'--Curtis Clark 23:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for looking that up, and for fixing it all in one fell swoop. I've grown up calling it "Anacharis" and was unaware that the binomial had been changed to Elodea canadensis...but I knew instantly that the Brazilian plant was not where the redirect should be pointing. Tomertalk 06:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maples

I intend to work on the wikipedia coverage of maples soon, starting with that page, and specifically with a copy at User:Circeus/Maple. It's been a long while since I've made content contributions, but finding Pirc's book (which apparenly does not have an English translation) rekindled my interest. My college library has Maples of the World (which looks fantastically good from its Amazon.com extract), and I am open to know of any other sources I should have a look at. I am not very good at searching journals, so suggestions in this domain are especially appreciated. Circeus 02:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I reckon a more 'mapley' image in the taxobox would be a good lead and to sprinkle images thru the pages near relevant text rather than galleries. Am in Australia so far from any natural maple habitat. Will let you know if I have any ideas. cheers Cas Liber 03:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, as I said above, I am not very competing at looking up scientific articles. I'm trying to locate recent (post 1996) information on the placement of Aceraceae within Sapindaceae, which is the current position of the article, but for which I can hardly find any sources beyond the AGP, is it commoly accepted or not? I'm also trying to find some recent stuff on subgeneric divisions, namely, can I base the article on the classification in Van Gelderen (1994)? Circeus 15:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything that changes the classification post-APG; inclusion of Acer in Sapindaceae seems to be gaining widespread acceptance. The van Gelderen subdivisions are widely used, though they're not based on genetic analysis, only morphology, so they may well become superseeded. Their classification is also very conservative, with several species accepted by most other authors reduced to subspecies (e.g. A. ginnala, A. grandidentatum); for these I'd think we should retain them as species. Note for the refs, there's a sci style template at {{cite journal2}} (avoids the humanities style of having article titles in quote marks) - MPF 01:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, they treat A. tataricum and A. saccharum as cryptic species complex on the basis (at least for A. saccharum) that there are so many morphologically intermediate individuals that would impossible to classify without biochemical analysis as to make tehse divisions useless. However, I am not familiar with the precise work these are based and the divergences are worthy of mentionning anyway. Besides, we usually keep separate articles for notable subspecies. Circeus 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
A. tataricum and A. ginnala at least are very readily distinguishable, they certainly don't fit the 'cryptic species complex' criteria! - MPF 09:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
While I'm at it, within Sapidaceae, Aceraceae and Hippocastanaceae are joind into subfamily Hippocastanoideae, is that correct? Circeus 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes - MPF 09:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Odd, the dipteronia sources mentions aceroideae (see also [1] and [2], more stuff I must read). will have to mention both classifications. I'm considering using Aceraceae for the taxobox, though, at least as long as we'll keep a separate Aceraceae article, with, of course, mention ofthe sapindaceae reclassification, any opinions? Circeus 19:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Expert Opinions Needed: Citrus

In June 2006 I was having a short debate on a citrus topic: Is Citrus aurantifolia a species or a hybrid? Originally I let it go and left the page as is (hybrid). But now It's bothering me again and I don't know if I should change the page or leave it as is. I firmly believe that the key lime is a pure species and not a hybrid. But my opinion alone does --Curtis Clark 13:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)not matter, it is the community consensus that matters. Should it remain classified as a hybrid or a species? P.S. How do you write the time? My watch says its 3:12 P.M. but I don't know how to translate it into Wikipedia time. - 29 July 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.237.252.122 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 29 July 2006.

I don't have a comment on Citrus aurantifolia, but sign your comments using four tildes, e.g., ~~~~. That automatically adds your username and the timestamp. I'll add an unsigned tag next that will include a useful link. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Names of hybrids are governed by Appendix I and Article 50 of the ICBN. Citrus aurantifolia was the original name of the plant, i.e. it was not described as a nothospecies (hybrid). Back when I was in the business, ICBN required that, should it be decided that a species was really a nothospecies, it was necessary to publish that information, in the form of the nothospecies combination followed by pro sp., indicating that it was originally published as a species. Index Kewensis records this for Mentha ×piperita, but not for Citrus ×aurantifolia.
I can't seem to find the same requirement in the Saint Louis Code, so maybe now someone can just write Citrus ×aurantifolia whenever they want. And unfortunately Google ignores the "×". When I search on "Citrus x aurantifolia", many of the hits are Wikipedia forks, and none list its putative parents.
I believe Citrus ×aurantifolia is a mis-transcription or otherwise an error, because I've seen no evidence that it is a hybrid. But there could be recent stuff in the literature that I'm not aware of that supports its hybrid nature.--Curtis Clark 21:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So far everyone agrees with me. Does anybody disagree? By the way I would like references to offer as proof. 00:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that a reference should have been needed to introduce Citrus ×aurantifolia, since Citrus aurantifolia was its original name, it appears never to have been published as pro sp., and no indication is given as to its parentage. Are you the same anon that has been trying to make the change to Citrus?--Curtis Clark 23:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I read the abstract at Nicolosi, E., Z. N. Deng, A. Gentile, S. La Malfa, G. Continella, and E. Tribulato. 2000. Citrus phylogeny and genetic origin of important species as investigated by molecular markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 100(8): 1155 - 1166 (abstract online here), and someone misconstrued what it means. Adding "×" to a name indicates that it is a nothospecies, that every individual is a hybrid. Cultivated plants can be nothospecies if they are effectively clones of a hybrid. But all Nicolosi et al. are saying is that genetic evidence shows C. aurantifolia to be of hybrid origin ("...a hybrid origin was hypothesized for all the tested genotypes."). A true-breeding species of hybrid origin is not a nothospecies. Whether key limes breed true from seed, I don't know, but to call them Citrus ×aurantifolia is original research. I'll change it later today or tomorrow.--Curtis Clark 23:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, a (more or less) true-breeding species of hybrid origin can be considered as a nothospecies. A nothospecies is simply a taxon resulting from a hybrid between two species, nothing more, nothing less. It may be naturally occurring or it may be an artificial hybrid; it may be sterile or it may be fertile. But there is considerable gray area as to when the "×" should be added to the name. MrDarwin 02:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I strongly disagree, at least with respect to the biology. One common mode of hybrid speciation is amphidiploidy. An example given on that page is Sequoia sempervirens; I don't see anyone calling it ×Sequoia. There is a fundamental biological distinction between a group of plants, every one of which is the result of an act of hybridization between two different species, and another group of plants, every one of which is the offspring of a plant belonging to that group. Ordinarily the first group would be called a nothospecies, and the second a species. The fact that the second might be the product of a stabilized hybrid (either polyploid or diploid) doesn't change that. --Curtis Clark 04:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the parents have to be "postulated or known" to be considered a nothotaxon. At any rate, various botanists have treated nothotaxa in various ways (and are not always in agreement). The Code state (H.4.1) "When all the parent taxa can be postulated or are known, a nothotaxon is circumscribed so as to include all individuals (as far as they can be recognized) derived from the crossing of representatives of the stated parent taxa (i.e. not only the Fl but subsequent filial generations and also back-crosses and combinations of these). There can thus be only one correct name corresponding to a particular hybrid formula; this is the earliest legitimate name (see Art. 6.3) in the appropriate rank (Art. H.5), and other names to which the same hybrid formula applies are synonyms of it." MrDarwin 13:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I see now reason why the parents need to be known. Theoretically it is quite possible to have a plant that by its karyology is definitely a hybrid, being recognized as a nothotaxon, although both parents are unknown. The issue is whether it is a hybrid or not. On the other hand a hybrid formula does require both parents to be known. Brya 14:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
ICBN: "H.3.2. A nothotaxon cannot be designated unless at least one parental taxon is known or can be postulated."--Curtis Clark 14:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I should be more careful before making quick comments! Brya 05:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Which of course, Mabberley has fulfilled by identifying C. maxima as one of the parents. I'm not aware that the taxon is known in the wild, AFAIK it is only cultivated, like oranges, lemons, etc. - MPF 16:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[3], [4], [5], [6]. (Whether these references are reliable is of course another matter.)--Curtis Clark 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question Curtis, no I have not edited the citrus article for a long time. Therefore I am not the same anon you speak of.00:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Mabberley (possibly the most highly regarded authority on the genus) treats it as a hybrid:

The commercially important citrus are largely derived from three allopatric Citrus (subg. Citrus) spp.: C. medica L. (India), C. reticulata Blanco (China) and C. maxima (Burm.) Merr. (SE Asia), though there are at least two as yet unrecognised species in the ancestry of the lime, C. × aurantiifolia (Christm.) Swingle, and the lemon, C. × limon (L.) Osb. (see Mabberley 1997).
—From Telopea 7: 333–344 (pdf file)

On the proceedural requirements for changing species to hybrids, I'm not aware of any; as Curtis says, there's nothing in the current ICBN. - MPF 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Addenum: Mabberley has made the pro sp. amendment, in Telopea 7: 167-172 (pdf file):

Citrus × aurantiifolia (Christm.) Swingle, J. Washington Acad. Sci. 3: 465 (1913) pro sp., as ‘aurantifolia’.
[2. Citrus maxima × ?*]
Limonia × aurantiifolia Christm., Vollst. Pflanzensyst. 1: 618 (1777) pro sp., as ‘aurantifolia’.
Type: [icon] ‘Limonellus sive Limon Nipis’ Rumphius, Herbarium Amboinense 2: t. 29 (1741); lectotype selected by Stone in Dassanayake & Fosberg, Rev. Handbk. Fl. Ceylon 5: 424 (1985).
The lime. *The putative parent differs from the unknown parent of the lemon; Scora & Kumamoto (1983) consider there may be three wild species in the lime’s ancestry, two of them perhaps from outside subg. Citrus (but see also under C. × limon above).

MPF 01:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it cited somewhere that C. aurantifolia grows in the wild as a true-breeding species. Whether Mabberley was nomenclaturally justified in calling it C. ×aurantifolia, it's contrary to the ordinary way of dealing with true-breeding diploid species of hybrid origin. It certainly obscures the evolutionary differences between that species and others that consist of clones and sports of F1s.--Curtis Clark 04:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I still don't feel convinced, though I now wonder if I was wrong. I am extremely confused & don't know what to do about it. I don't feel right leaving it as it was, but I also don't feel right with my classification. Maybe I should just step away from the article for a while. And why aren't more wikipedians answering my question?. I need a COMMUNITY consensus people. So far only two people have answered my question. - 02:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There are two different questions here
  1. is Citrus aurantifolia of hybrid origin?
  2. should Citrus aurantifolia be given a hybrid name?
These questions are quite separate. Lots of hybrids have species names. As far as I know Citrus aurantifolia is of hybrid origin but does not get a hybrid name. As with any name it is important to indicate who uses it, so if Citrus ×aurantifolia is to be used or mentioned it is important to indicate who uses it that way. Brya 06:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Your first question is really two, which are more or less mutually exclusive: Is Citrus aurantifolia a hybrid, or is Citrus aurantifolia a true-breeding species of hybrid origin. The former often get the "×"; the latter almost never do.--Curtis Clark 13:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I like to stick to basics. My first question is a single question. If the answer is yes than in order to answer the second question the taxonomist in question may want to ask himself your two questions. ;) Brya 14:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It may sound basic, but in practice it is not. If I am handed an F1 hybrid (not identified as such), and I self it or cross it with another such plant, the progeny range will automatically make me suspect that it is a hybrid. And if I have the putative parents, I can repeat the cross. Species of hybrid origin, on the other hand, breed true, and behave more or less like any other species. In the case of alloploids, the chromosome number is a hint, but only in the context of other known chromosome numbers in the group. Morphology is often misleading; some classical examples of diploid hybrid speciation in Penstemon and Delphinium turned out to be equivocal, and Riesberg's classic work on Helianthus includes cases where he had established hybrid origin before he was sure about one of the parents (and the new species was not intermediate in appearance between the parents).
It is true that every species of hybrid origin starts out as one or more hybrid plants. But in practice the two questions are most often answered separately, often each without considering the other (I may know whether a species is true-breeding before I know whether it is of hybrid origin).
A bibliography that cites most of the relevant papers as of nine years ago may be found in Allan, Gerard J., Curtis Clark, and Loren H. Riesberg. 1997. Distribution of parental DNA markers in Encelia virginensis (Asteraceae: Heliantheae), a diploid species of putative hybrid origin. Pl. Syst. Evol. 205:205-221. PDF.--Curtis Clark 14:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well frankly, in light of what all of you have shown me here, I would classify True-breeding citrus species of hybrid origin as full species. If they breed true and have been in existance for a long time it doesn't really make sense to classify it as a hybrid. Though the definition of species has been changing ever since the discovery of hybrids, I think that the Species concept should include taxa of hybrid origin that breed true, have a sustainable population in the wild and have a niche in nature. Anyway, who are we as mere mortals to decide what a species is?. Nature does that all on her own. 15:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it's not the origin but the current status that matters. Just because it started off as a hybrid does not mean it still is one. - 15:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

While looking on comons this link http://plants.usda.gov/gallery.html was in a discussion page about plants. Its a US targeted data base so unless the plant has been introduced into the US it wont be there. that aside there is about 11,000 PD images all with and searchable by scientific names. Gnangarra 11:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very nice. But beware, when you click on a species name, you get a mixed bag of free and nonfree. For instance, Phacela bipinnitafida has four photos and a drawing, but only the drawing is free, it being a scan from an old book. Stan 15:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a filter option when searching to restrict the results to PD. Gnangarra 01:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I used it wrong then, because I got a list of species, each of which had PD images, but not exclusively. Stan 05:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless you specifically look for it , Its an obscurely placed selection box on the search page right hand column between region options Gnangarra 05:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translating a botanical term from spanish

While translating the article Euphorbia atropurpurea (a Canary Islands shrub) from spanish, I came across the word bracteas. I don't really have any technical botanical knowledge, and this word wasn't translatable by any of my dictionaries; I just left it untranslated. Can anyone figure out what it means and maybe make the correction? --Erudy 16:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Done! It translated as "bracts". --NoahElhardt 17:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Erudy! If you do an iw link on bract on one side, please do it on the other. (I've been known to translate too, and that really helps!) -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cruciferae

Anyone able to help me improve some of the articles?? Advice is appreciated! --TheM62Manchester 12:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

My suggestions is to go from up to down, e.g. start by improving Brassicaceae, than you couldmove down into a genus, then into species article. When doing family and genera article, I find it particularly necessary to include the delimitating element from a taxonomic PoV, that is, what are the shard elements that unite all the members of the group and segregate them from other related groups? In my opinion, that should be clearly stated in genera, order and family articles. Circeus 07:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I am taking the opposite position. There is no point in trying to improve articles if you do not have the required knowledge. In general it is much easier to take a species and look more closely into that. Unless one really knows what one is doing one should not try and describe higher level taxa: such attempts very easily lead to atrocious results. Brya 07:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to make them into featured article candidates - I haven't seen plants being on the Main Page very much. --TheM62Manchester 11:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Good luck to you. There is a reason plant articles in wikipedia mostly don't amount to much. Hope you make it. Brya 14:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plant photo collection - no IDs though

I have about 150 WP quality plant and flower photos sitting on my computer that I was thinking of uploading to commons. Does this WikiProject provide a similar "identification" service to the Anthropod project? (Note: crossposted to en and commons). --cfp 21:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the German WP has an life ID page, where anyone can post pictures of living beings to be ID'ed. I was considering suggesting a similar page for the English WP... is there any interest? I have at least 3 dozen plant and insect pictures from my trip to Mexico that I need identification. I could post them on the talk pages of the appropriate family articles, but mightn't it be better to have a centralized ID page? --NoahElhardt 21:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Or post them here - MPF 17:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Or upload them to commons, there is an identification unit on commons, albeit not a very active one, see commons:Category:Unknown species TeunSpaans 19:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for article review

Once again I seem to have trespassed upon a botanical article claimed as personal property and jealously guarded by another editor, and have been having a most unpleasant time trying to get any of what I consider useful, factual, and entirely reasonable edits into it. The article is Type (botany). I will freely admit that I am capable of making mistakes, which is why I am making this appeal here: somebody please check out the article and keep me honest. The problem is that even after discussion with the other editor I absolutely cannot see where the error lies in my additions or why they keep getting reverted or deleted. MrDarwin 21:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Brya is heading for a spanking by the Arbcom - the personal attacks and insults are way out of line. I don't even need to look at the article, the talk page content alone is completely unacceptable. Stan 03:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common name capitalization (article titles and in text)

Having not seen a thorough discussion of botanical common name capitalization in this specific WikiProject, I have copied the following discussion from User talk:MPF. Rkitko 18:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm sure I've missed pertinent discussions on the capitalization debate in either WP:TOL or WP:PLANTS. If you know specifically where they are, I'd appreciate the links :-)

Second, as you may have noticed, I removed said capitals in error on the titled page above (Red Alder). Common names of plants are not proper names in and of themselves. I'm of the opinion that plant names should only contain capitals when a portion of their name refers to a specific place or name. I've noticed that you're of the opposite opinion. The only argument in favor of that formatting that I've seen is that it nicely demarcates what is and what is not the plant's common name in prose text. While I agree in principle that it's an easy way to signal the reader that this is the plant's name, I disagree in practice and still believe this to be a misuse of capitalization. If you could provide further thoughts on the topic, I would read it with interest.

Third, I was wondering if we could engage in this discussion on WP:PLANTS or WP:TOL so that others in the community could see it and give their opinions. Since I haven't been around as long as you, I defer to you whether or not there has been sufficient coverage of this debate in that community recently--if not, I'll move this note over to WP:PLANTS so we can discuss there (or you can, if you wish).

Thanks! Best, Rkitko 16:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rkitko. Let's move this to WP:PLANTS, since other groups, such as birds, have different traditions.--Curtis Clark 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It's been discussed on numerous occasions in the WP:TOL talk archives; take a look through. Generally, there has been a small majority in favour of caps for various practical reasons, e.g. a wild cherry (any species of Prunus growing in its natural environment) is not necessarily the same as a Wild Cherry (the common name of the particular species Prunus avium). Also, please, whatever you want to do, it is not a good idea to subdivide species into two different groups based on the (often very obscure) etymology of the name (e.g. is Pohutukawa a proper name? Do you know the Maori etymology?? I don't!). As for what tradition it follows - you'll find that most field guides use caps for plant (and other living things) names (and have done so for a long time, e.g. Preston's (1948) North American Trees). - MPF 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I see the issue as a corollary to the ever-present question of "what is a common name", and the tendency (regrettable in my view) to standardize common names as an alternative to scientific names. In ordinary English running text (at least in this hemisphere), truly vernacular names of plants are almost never capitalized; it would look strange to write "I made a meal of Potatoes, Tomatoes, and Spinach, sauteed in Olive oil and seasoned with Black Pepper," even though all those names refer to single species of plants. Likewise, walking through the Red Alders and California Bays and seeing a Northern Oriole flying toward the Coast Redwoods looks a bit strange in text, despite "Northern Oriole" being properly capitalized according to AOU usage. I could follow a consensus to capitalize all parts of a common name in an article title (although I disagree), but to capitalize all common names in an article such as the running-text list Tribulus terrestris IMO pushes the limits of typographic acceptability.--Curtis Clark 18:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. For some reason, even though I mentioned it, I had checked the talk archives of WP:TOL. Interesting discussions there. And thank you for your comments, specifically on the ambiguous nature of some common names. That was enlightening. I still, however, favor lowercase common names for plants. I wish I had the time right now to flush out my reasoning, but the job that pays the Wikipedia bill (errr... the cable internet bill) beckons. For now and for simplicity's sake, I will copy and paste what I have written on my user page that gives examples:
I vehemently (note: not venomously) disagree with those that believe all species common names should be capitalized (i.e. Red Alder instead of red alder). Common names should start with lower case letters such as western hemlock except for cases where, obviously, the first letter of a common name begins a sentence or part of the name is a proper noun after a specific place or person (i.e. Sitka spruce not "sitka spruce" and coast Douglas-fir not "coast douglas-fir"; but never "Sitka Spruce" and "Coast Douglas-Fir").
As for the wild cherry example, my solution would be to move Wild Cherry to Prunus avium and make wild cherry a disambig page for all the different species that title could describe. But then, I advocate moving most plant articles to their sci names (if I recall correctly, I believe we may agree on that point). And just as I may have let my capitalization POV leak into my editting (either unrealized geographically as in Cytisus scoparius or realized POV in Red alder, for which I apologize--I slapped myself on the wrist), I was wondering about all your recent page moves] for caps reasons (e.g. [7], [8], etc.). If Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Animals, plants, and other organisms says that "Editors have hotly debated whether the common names of species should start with a capital letter, and this remains unresolved. As a matter of truce, both styles are acceptable..." then I'm left wondering why you're spending the time moving these pages?
So I guess the issue is two-fold. 1) Should common name titles (if used) of plant articles be capitalized and 2) Should common name titles in text be capitalized? I look forward to new information I haven't considered yet. Best, Rkitko 18:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Simple answer on my recent moves; that is to maintain uniformity within Category:Fagaceae and Category:Fagales, where everything bar a few oaks has caps, so I've been moving the few to be in line with the rest. I reckon it is fairly important to maintain uniformity within a group (category). There are other categories where all or most of the taxa are not capitalised; I've not been moving these. Yes, moving everything to sci names would be very nice; unfortunately, it is equally (well, to be honest, even more) divisive – while there would likely be a majority of the 'regular' plant people here agreeing, as soon as some others on the wiki main page policy group got wind of it, they'd pile in here and outvote it. On my personal preference for caps, it arises partly out of what I was brought up on in my childhood field guide reading, plus the various practical benefits it has (as mentioned at various places in the archives). Personally, I find something like "coast Douglas-fir" with a cap in the middle but not at the start looks weird; ditto a list with some names randomly capitalised but others not (what is different/superior about the species that deserve caps?!); if we are to do away with caps, we should do away with all of them for uniformity (therefore sitka spruce, douglas-fir, etc). To Curtis's points - it is perhaps quibbling a bit, but I at least do see a difference between the species (capitalised) and its products (lower case); thus doing a botanical study on the Potato, while eating a potato. The tendency to standardise common names is probably more of a UK/European thing (and also e.g. South African), but I suspect even more significantly a legal thing to avoid confusion; if you buy a plant by mail order from a nursery selling plants by common name, and you get a plant different to what you expected becuase they use the common name in a different way, you want some redress in law to get it changed to what you wanted. If you bought a Red Fir, expecting Abies magnifica, what would you do if you received a Larix occidentalis from an old-timer who used the name for that species? Accept it was a valid alternative, or complain about getting the wrong item? Personally, I'd complain. I'm in favour of anything that reduces ambiguity and confusion. - MPF 20:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree uniformity is important, in most cases. But I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) especially in the case of color (colour) articles, moving a page from its original title to fit either American English or British English spellings for uniformity's sake within, say, a specific color category (browns, say) is not the correct action. We shouldn't, say, move Buff (colour) to Buff (color) just because all the other colors in that category are spelled "color" in the title (at least that's my understanding of WP:MoS#Disputes over style issues). Now, I realize regional spelling isn't the same as capitalization, but the issue is simply a POV one. You admit you were/are influenced by sources that capitalize common names of species. I readily admit I'm influenced by sources that do the opposite. Specifically on field guides, three of the guides I have do not capitalize common names: Pojar and Mackinnon's Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast (2004 edition), William M. Harlow's Fruit Key & Twig Key to Trees & Shrubs (though his propensity for the ampersand irks me) (1959), and Muenscher's Keys to Woody Plants (ed. by Edward A. Cope, 2001). But I'd also like to note that Wikipedia is not a field guide, so I'm of the opinion that field guide styles should very loosely guide us, especially since they're so different across the board. I prefer to, instead rely upon style guides like the Chicago Manual of Style, which even the Wikipedia MoS says to defer to (among other style guides) if the issue is not specifically spelled out. I'd have to double check, as I don't have a copy available at the moment, but I believe the CMS notes that common names should not be capitalized unless a proper noun is part of the name.
And I have no problem with the appearance of coast Douglas-fir, but Bigleaf Maple doesn't look right to me. I suppose that's mostly personal preference, which is what we should avoid working from. I'm going to try to find more authoritative sources (in both American English and British English style guides) to determine what they have to offer us in this discussion. Cheers, Rkitko 06:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Another factor that comes into play in the US is endangered species, all of whom seem to magically acquire "common names" as part of listing, no matter how little-known they were previously - I assume because it's harder to engender public support for saving an unpronounceable Latin mouthful! Subsequently you'll find newspaper editors and the like loath to use capitalization on the name; in general US readers find capitalization to be a bit pompous when applied to anything less than the Supreme Being. :-) Stan 22:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
And endangered species names are most often capitalized, in my experience, again perhaps because of a legal issue ("it's not just any old santa susana tarplant, it's the Santa Susana Tarplant").--Curtis Clark 23:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
(What a coincidence, I have pics of it in a Tilden BG pile I'm preparing for upload...) Google results are all over the place for this one actually, not even consistent *within* some websites. Field guides seem much more consistent though. Stan 00:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
May I chime in? The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Edition, addresses common names of plants and animals in 8.136. For the correct capitalization and spelling of common names of plants and animals, consult a dictionary or the authoritative guides to nomenclature, the ICBN and the ICZN, mentioned in 8.127. In any one work, a single source should be followed. In general, Chicago recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives, as in the following examples, which conform to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.Dutchman's-breeches, mayapple, jack-in-the-pulpit, rhesus monkey, Rocky Mountain sheep, Cooper's hawk. --Captadam 20:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The ICBN does not address common names at all, much less whether or not they should be capitalized. I'm not as familiar with the ICZN but I suspect it's the same case there. Otherwise I have no strong opinions on if or when or how common names should be capitalized. MrDarwin 15:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Late the the party here, but shouldn't Wild cherry (and/or Wild Cherry be a disambiguation? A lot of plants actually go by that name, depending on where you live. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 14:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Depth limits

I was just wondering about the upper limit on coverage - is it actually possible to have a full page (say 500 words) on every known species of plant? Certainly there are many for which there is a lot to say, but there also seem to be another bunch that have never been much studied beyond defining the key characters, so maybe articles on those will always be kind of thin? Or is it just a matter of laying hands on the right source works? Stan 04:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As a measure, I have spent several decades studying both Encelia and Eschscholzia, and I'm not sure I could come up with 500 words on Eschscholzia elegans or Encelia halimifolia. Even if I could, much of it would be original research, since I never published much of what I know: there's no market in refereed journals for "natural history"-type observations on little-known species.
And the "depth" part reminds me of Pelagophycus, about which little is known beyond detached sporophytes washed one shore, because it anchors much deeper on the seafloor than, say, Macrocystis, and few people have spent much time there.--Curtis Clark 05:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk archives

I've been meaning to do that for a while. The 171 KB talk page was taking a while to load on my 'puter, so I just copied the archiving format from WP:TOL. Archive summaries in the template are a bit long--please feel free to tweak them to make them more concise and accurate. Also, move things around if you feel the archives are too short, too expansive, etc. I tried not to archive any discussions that seemed like they might still have some active input in them. Create another archive if you think this page is still too long. Oh, and can someone else put all the archived pages on their watchlist to watch for any changes and move them to the active talk page when/if they occur (or revert vandalism if that ever would happen). :-) Rkitko 05:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiversity School of Plant Science

Hoping some folks here will be interested in participating there. One project started: Original Research for a bloom clock to come up with a system for discussing bloom times in a region-neutral language. Other research projects, teaching courses, etc. would be most welcome.

The school is at v:School:Plant Sciences. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on reversions, deletions, and editing in general

(Note: I have posted this to MPF's talk page but this is something that I think deserves a wider audience so I'm posting it here as well.)

With regard to my attempted edits to the Vinca minor article, what offended me much more than your dismissal and deletion of the links I provided was your immediate deletion of the common names I added to the article. You know me by now; you know I am not a fly-by-night anomymous vandal whose sole goal is adding nonsense to Wikipedia. I should not have to convince you that we benighted Americans really do have our own set of common names for plants that don't always correspond to the ones in use in England--this is one of the major reasons why I have stressed using botanical names for article titles with all common names redirecting to the botanical names. There is no international authority to arbitrate common names, although some Wikipedia editors seem to want Wikipedia to become that authority. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote one common name over another, as that is a POV; the purpose of Wikpedia is to provide factual and accurate information about the real world and an article should merely note which common names are in use, where they are used, and perhaps which are more common than others (if that can be determined). I cannot stress this enough: there is no such thing as a correct common name.

I note also that you reverted, without comment, the addition of Acer discolor to the List of Acer species article. (No, this was not my addition.) Why was this name deleted? Your dismissive reversion provides no clue to the person who added it, or to any other editors. (Perhaps because A. discolor Hort. ex Rehder--a name that persists in horticulture--is a synonym of A. oblongum? But according to the Flora of China there is indeed a valid species Acer discolor Maxim. that is endemic to China. I'm no authority on Acer so I'll have to leave it to somebody else to sort this out.) As an aside, I note that this list is completely unreferenced; where did this list (and the common names accompanying the botanical names), like so many other mysterious lists on Wikipedia, come from? I generally find such lists almost worse than useless, as they almost always have errors and there is rarely any indication as to where they came from, or whose taxonomy they are following, making them virtually impossible to proofread or correct.

This kind of reflexively dismissive editing of others' additions and edits, often with no comment or explanation, by more active editors is one of the things that will ultimately discourage many people with knowledge and expertise in one or more subjects from editing Wikipedia. I know that it has been very discouraging to me, and is one of the reasons why I have become frustrated and disillusioned with Wikipedia. I simply don't have the time to convince other editors, over and over, that I do occasionally know what I'm talking about. It would be a shame if Wikipedia came to represent, not necessarily the knowledge of those with the most expertise in a particular field, but of those with too much time on their hands to endlessly patrol and jealously guard hundreds of pet articles. I have encountered this tendency with Brya, and I have seen the same tendency in you; my interactions with both of you were among the reasons why I left Wikipedia for a time, and will probably leave it again. There are far better things to do with my time and expertise. MrDarwin 13:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

On common names, many will differ with your opinion that "there is no such thing as a correct common name" - that is itself a POV, and as such, cannot be taken as a standard for wikipedia. Many others - perhaps particularly outside of the USA - would agree that there is such a thing as a correct, or at least recommended or advised, common name, based on education to avoid confusion and misunderstanding by deliberately not using the same name for two or more unrelated taxa. If anyone can call anything by any name, the result is meaningless anarchy. When someone calls a Vinca a "myrtle", it is because of historical misidentification of the plant as Myrtus, which is the plant originally, and usually, so named in English. A misidentification is someone getting something wrong; if they then tried to sell that plant with the name of the misidentification, they would - at least in UK law - be liable to prosecution under trades descriptions legislation.
"I should not have to convince you that we benighted Americans really do have our own set of common names for plants that don't always correspond to the ones in use in England" - no, I'm well aware of it, and also that sometimes we benighted Britons use names that don't always correspond to the ones in use in America. What matters is that names that cause less botanical confusion, names with a longer history of use, and names used in the species' native continent, should be given greater prominence. Names used otherwise may often give offense as perceived cultural imperialism ("them lot trying to change the names of our plants for us"). Note that I try as far as possible to be internationally neutral in this, see e.g. my edit to Sequoiadendron for an example where I favoured the US use for a US species.
On the Acer discolor, I removed it as it was a link to a page of nonsense (now deleted) that had been added by an IP number, so I had some reason to believe the name was a fake. The name can easily be added to the list again as/when the list is checked. Yes, I agree that the Acer list does badly need checking over and referencing, it's on my list of things to do, along with many others.
I am very sorry if you have felt offended or put off by my edits; that was certainly not my intention, and I do hope you'll stick around. - MPF 15:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a comment/question, MPF. I know we've discussed this before, but where does "names used in the species' native continent should be given greater prominence" come from? Is that inspired by a WP:TOL consensus, wiki naming conventions, MoS...? I have not yet been able to find that. I understand the reasoning thoroughly (and respectfully disagree), but is this based on current wiki policy? Thanks! Rkitko 16:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that "there are numerous correct common names".
I will be the last person to argue that common names are better than, or should be used in place of, botanical names, much less that any particular American common name is better than the British common name for the same plant. English is spoken widely throughout the world and the various names applied to a particular plant are all equally correct or meaningless (take your pick) to me. But when there are numerous common names in use for a particular genus or species--and this is the case for many widely distributed or widely cultivated genera and species--the article should reflect any and all that are widely used in the various English-speaking countries.
Common names by their very nature vary from one place to another, and over time. On characteristic of common names is that they are often not tied to any phylogenetic or taxonomic concept except in the broad sense of "folk taxonomy" (many predate Linnaeus anyway), which is why names like "ash", "elder", and "ivy" have been applied a wide variety of plants that are only distantly related. What Linnaeus and subsequent botanists did in many cases was tie a common name that may have been used for a wide variety of plants (or even a different plant entirely) to a particular genus or even species. (Cactus is a particularly interesting case.) In other cases, a common name may be the result of a once perfectly valid but no longer applied taxonomic concept (e.g., "gloxinia" for Sinningia speciosa and "mimosa" for Albizia julibrissin) so to say such names are "incorrect" or "misidentifications" is inaccurate and misleading. Are we all misusing the word "vine" because the word originally referred quite specifically to plants now classified in the genus Vitis? If Linnaeus had chosen the name Vinus for this genus, would that make any difference as to whether the general term "vine" as commonly used is correct or incorrect?
The problem is this: who is the arbiter as to whether one common name is better or more correct than another? As I noted above, there is no international authority or arbiter and Wikipedia cannot pretend to be one. I frequently see weasel words like "misleading" or "incorrect" being used to refer to various common names. Yet common names are what they are: vernacular alternatives to botanical names that in many cases predate the botanical names themselves. Ignoring, dismissing, or disparaging common names used in North America in the name of "internationalism", or even a misguided attempt to standardize common names, in Wikipedia articles is itself a POV and a form of bias that will inevitably be perceived as Eurocentrism (and even anti-Americanism).
Back to Vinca: Americans really do use the terms "myrtle", "creeping myrtle", and "vinca" (as a common name) to refer to Vinca minor, as my linked references (conveniently deleted by MPF as having a "regional bias") documented. For better or for worse, the name "myrtle" has been attached to several different plants in different genera and even families: wax myrtle (Myrica), creeping myrtle (Vinca), and crepe myrtle (Lagerstroemia). It's impossible to pretend that these names are not in widespread use, and given this you won't get far with the argument that the name "myrtle" can only be correctly applied to plants in the genus Myrtus. Yes, it is confusing, but common names frequently are, which I assume is one reason why you and I both agree that articles are better titled with a plant's botanical name, with common names redirecting to the botanical names. But the users (as well as contributors) of Wikipedia include a very large number of Americans, and articles must reflect American usages as well as British, Canadian, Australian, etc.: not one above another, but inclusively. Americans certainly do not have a monopoly on the English language, but neither does anybody else. For example, it is confusing rather than educational for an American to look up the word "myrtle" in Wikipedia and be redirected to Myrtus, not because Americans are stupid or misinformed, but because "myrtle" means something slightly different in American English than it does in British English. It would be equally confusing to a Brit who is trying to figure out how we idiot Americans use the word "myrtle". MrDarwin 16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. It is well known and accepted that many taxa have multiple common names, and selecting only one at the exclusion of others (for whatever reason) would not only be POV but also remove important information from articles. People searching for plants by common names should have a chance at finding them, no matter what side of the Atlantic, or what region of the US, they hail from. --NoahElhardt 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me there are two issues here at hand. One is reverting edits without comment, the other is the acceptibility of local names.

I must admit that I personally make many edits without putting comments in the edit summary. There are imho however two circumstances where and edit summary is useful. The first is when I delete information. Somehow deleting stuff creates much more emotion than modifying or adding text. So I think it is very useful to create an edit summary when I delete text.
The second circumstance is when I revert someones edit. On another wiki, recently a user reverted some 10 of my edits and then had the courage to summon ME to explain my actions in the village pump. I can assure you it took me a night of sleep before I had cooled down sufficiently to give an answer. I just tell this to give an example of how reverts can get people mad, not to scold at the other user, whom I by now have sent a personal email to remain on speaking terms. ;-) (And to be fair to the other: I had been making deletions, and looking back the "summon" was a very polite "ask".)

It would be too bad if we loose valuable contributors due to a lack of communication. Btw, if you seem to get into a conflict with someone, there are procedures for conflict resolution. Simply ask someone else to mediate.

I dont have much of a personal opinion about the inclusion of common english names. The problem seems to have been resolved anyway, as I see some english names in vinca minor.

TeunSpaans 14:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

When I see a deletion by an anon without an edit summary, I usually revert it as probable vandalism. Why should we hold ourselves to a lesser standard?
I agree with MrDarwin about common names (and don't forget the Oregon myrtle). If a name in wide use is "wrong", it is NPOV to point out the error rather than suppress the name.--Curtis Clark 05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

If any of you have edited a page today and noticed the footnotes (ref tags) go a bit wonky after you edit, check out Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Help! Footnotes gone crazy! for a quick fix involving a purge of the page you just edited. Not quite sure what's going on, but I thought I'd give everyone here a head's up just in case it persists. The fix is as follows, provided by Gimmetrow: "I'm not sure yet why it's happening, but a purge seems to fix it. In order to do that, look at the page normally, then add a ?action=purge at the end of the url. ... (I'm surmising that articles are not being "purged" currently when saved.)" Rkitko 06:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomen nudum and Nomen conservandum

I see that Brya is back and still up to his/her same old tricks. Now s/he is insisting on removing any reference to the botanical concepts of nomen nudum and nomen conservandum in those articles while disparaging any such inclusion. This is even worse than the tautonym/tautonymous name fiasco a few weeks ago; at least there Brya could make the technical (if rather tenuous) case that the Botanical and Zoological codes use different terminology but the terms nomen nudum and nomen conservandum not only exist in botanical nomenclature but have virtually the identical meaning that they do in Zoological nomenclature. Perhaps the concepts differ in some slight nuance between the two Codes, but to remove any references to botanical nomenclature in these articles (rather than highlight and clarify any differences that may exist between the Codes in these concepts]] is beyond ridiculous. MrDarwin 21:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a comment at wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life for some wider discussion. MrDarwin 13:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the discussion was almost immediately derailed (a derail I more or less invited, and for that I apologize), I have separated the tangential discussion under a new heading immediately below. I would still like to hear the opinions of other editors regarding my specific question about how to handle the Nomen nudum and Nomen conservandum articles, as well as the more general question: when the terms are identical and the concepts nearly so, does it make sense for a single article to address both botanical and zoological nomenclature? MrDarwin 04:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Important note: Brya has moved the Nomen conservandum article, including its editing history, to a new article entitled Conserved name (zoology)‎ and has started a completely new article under the title Nomen conservandum, with an editing history of its own. A rather neat little trick, if a bit confusing to anybody trying to follow this discussion. MrDarwin 18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomen nudum and nomen conservandum (continued)

I will repeat that such edits by MrDarwin constitute vicious attacks. Apparently his presence in Wikipedia is for the sole purpose of altering my contributions, to insert his personal opinions and beliefs, without adding a single new item of information. I lately watched the movie Longitiude, where a board was assigned to award a prize and for fifty years waved away all evidence as being "anecdotal", only to avoid awarding the prize outside their own personal circle.
MrDarwin, get a life. If you can't at least go and do something constructive. Wikipedia is still mostly empty when it comes to plants. If you know something of plants there is plenty of scope for you to realize something that will be of use. Brya 15:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Well said Brya. I suggest you now start listening to your own advice. What contributions have you made lately? It looks, from your user log and the evidence brought forth by MrDarwin, that you have mainly been removing valuable information from articles, rather than actually doing anything "constructive" as you put it. Removal of info on POV technicalities is destructive, not constructive. --NoahElhardt 15:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I have been doing quite faithfully what I have always done: correcting errors in basic facts and adding new material as time allows. If correcting errors in basic facts (mostly in articles which I wrote myself and have been maintaining for almost a year) is not even allowed then there is not much else I can do, is there? Brya 15:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Brya. Polemize minus and contribute more. Berton 15:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Brya 15:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common names

After our spat regarding the Vinca minor article I've had some discussion with MPF and several other editors regarding common names. I continue to believe that as an international encyclopedia, Wikipedia's plant articles should include all common names of at least somewhat common usage in the various English-speaking regions of the world, regardless of where they are used; it is not Wikipedia's place to promote one common name above another as the "correct" one. Like it or not, "myrtle" is fairly commonly used as a name for Vinca minor in the USA. I think a reasonable compromise is to discuss which names are in use in which regions of the world; in most cases, but especially those where there are numerous common names for a single species (or genus), common names should probably have their own paragraph and discussion within the article. I have no idea why the name "myrtle" is used for Vinca minor (or for Lagerstroemia or for Myrica) but it would be interesting to know why; the history of common names is as fascinating as the history of botanical names and a discussion of why certain names are used in certain regions would be informative in its own right (although in some cases the reasons are quite straightforward; for example, Sinningia speciosa is commonly known as "gloxinia"--the valid name of another genus entirely--simply because the species was originally, and quite validly at the time, named and introduced as Gloxinia speciosa, and became immensely popular under that name). I hope Wikipedia can include this kind of information but that's probably far in the future. In the meantime, Wikipedia should simply record the facts of usage in the hope that somebody will expand the article later. MrDarwin 13:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Any common name used for a number of different taxa should have its own article, somewhat like a disambiguation page, but with enough content that the reader can either a) get directed to the right taxon article, or b) realize that he/she needs to get more information. Sardine is an example I created long ago for fish; the article is a simpler and more useful solution than any redirect could be. Stan 18:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I definitely agree... common name disambig pages would be much better with thumbnails, assuming we have pix of all the plants being referred to. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 23:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
If there are several common names for a species, I see no objection in listing those we know about. TeunSpaans 19:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments moved from project page

Here's one example of confusion that already exists, Bay Laurel in California is an accepted common name for Umbellularia californica, but in Wikipedia, Bay Laurel is THE common name for Laurus nobilis, and one cannot find the California Bay Laurel by searching Wikipedia by common name.

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/umbcal/all.html (And, yes, I know it's not listed in the Jepson Manaul online as a common name.)

  • "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." The solution to this is not doing away with binomial nomenclature which opens the world of nature up to everyone, but to include common names, when they are available, after the scientific names in lists. And list plants that have common names by their common names, then direct users to the article under the scientific name.
  • A suggestion is made at one point that "If a plant is endemic the common name should be used." All plants are endemic--to somewhere.
  • As to plants without common names in English, there are more that meet this description than otherwise, making it readily apparent that there will be no order in botany on Wikipedia by using this method. Some plants will be under common names, but eventually a larger number will be under scientific names, and this will make Wikipedia a confusing mess for those seeking botanical information.
  • Also, "Plants with contrasting common names in different regions" should use scientific names to title articles ignores the fact that almost all plants have different common names in different regions because people speak different languages, and common names are just that: the common name for a plant in a specific region. Common names ARE regionalisms. That's why scientists use scientific names.
  • In botany, there is only one correct scientific name. When the names are in dispute one should simply check ICBN to find out the current correct one. Alternate or incorrect names should contain a note and direct to the correct name. The solution of using a common name won't work because all names with incorrect synonyms do not have common names, and one must make an additional Wiki-ception for this instance.

All these rules just cry out for making exceptions.

  • There is one good comment about a place where common names would be appropriate and useful, "Plants with single-word or short English common names in wide use, especially if they are economically or culturally significant." For economically and culturally significant plants, an article about that, their economic and/or cultural significance under their common name would be acceptable, with links to the botanical article, including the botanical descriptions and classifications under the scientific name.

The reason scientific binomials were so readily accepted after the publication of Linnaeus' tomes, was their immediate usefulness for conveying exactly what organism was being discussed. They were adopted long before they were codified, because they tell people all over the world exactly what organism you are speaking about.

To title articles by their scientific names and use all redirects to that article is simply easier, and it removes all confusion. When someone is armed with the scientific name, they can do additional research at whatever level. Armed with a common name in an incressingly international world, a student may wind up confused or with incorrect information and without the necessary knowledge (the scientific name) to know they are wrong.

There are simply too many ways to go wrong using common names as titles. And all these ways of going wrong are corrected by using the scientific name of the plant, without exceptions.

The botanical articles are a mess. There is someone who is going through hundreds of Wikipedia pages on flora and fauna and adding specific types of notes that are helpful. But the most helpful thing would be to set a standard and get it going right away, to make it easier for those who want to contribute and those who want to use Wikipedia.

I would like to help more, but it takes a lot of time to learn to use Wikipedia, and I can only go one step at a time.

Please consider redirecting common names to scientific names, and titling articles by their scientific names. If you don't do it now, someone will have to do it in the future to clean up the botanical pages. It won't be done the other way around: scientific names won't ever be converted in Botany to common names, it's simply the nature of plants, there are too many without common names, they travel around the world as weeds, and folks need to gain scientific, horticultural and natural history knowledge about them, and the way to do that is by using their singular names. KP Botany 21:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree! Others have said before that as soon as we here in this project decide to name articles by the scientific name, Wikipedians outside of the project would automatically overrun us by sticking to larger common naming conventions for article titles. However, instead of dismissing your comments and leaving it at that, I suggest we formulate a sensibly worded naming convention, specifically on article titles and scientific names and then propose it as a Wikipedia naming convention at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Most everyone else agrees, at least here, on this issue. So, suggestions for a carefully worded naming convention, anyone? --Rkitko 00:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree too. I want to point out, though, that the statement "In botany, there is only one correct scientific name," is incorrect. The rules of the ICBN allow us to select the correct name when names are nomenclatural synonyms (share the same type), but taxonomic synonyms (that don't share the same type), and even homotypic synonyms placed in different genera, are a matter of scientific opinion (so that, for example, Parkinsonia florida and Cercidium floridum are both correct names, depending on how you circumscribe the genera). This is not an argument against using the scientific name, but we need to be prepared for those who would claim that scientific names are less stable than common names.--Curtis Clark 03:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand this. I had to look up a list of scientific names to verify for plants using a garden subscription site. One of the plants I looked up was Cercidium floridum. I think it is listed in the database as Parkinsonia florida being correct, but the USDA site lists Cercidium floridum as the correct name--or the latter is correct in the database and the former is in the Jepson Manual, and I don't remember how it was decided or what was decided to use. What is differently circumscribed? There are two different type specimens, one for each name? How do they differ? Then I suppose it should be listed under both names, but I'm still not following this, if they're differently circumscribed, then the names are valid for different circumscriptions of the same type specimen? Oh, well, maybe taxonomy is best left to taxonomists.
Scientific names in botany today are much less stable than common names, good point--and this would have to be recognized in the plant article naming guidelines. This doesn't remove the rampant set of problems associated with common names, including your comment that it would require an entire encyclopedia of its own right to hold all of the common names for plants. KP Botany 17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent point; thanks for including that. As for article titles, if we seek out the purpose of a well-chosen title, I think we'd be better prepared to defend our choice. Here, I believe stability is a smaller player, while internal and external ease of access of information is key. A user needs to be able to locate an article by searching for the most common term. That, I think, is the biggest argument against the scientific name titles (not considering redirects). But since common names are so disputed and regional, often no common name consensus can be created and we could argue that therefore the latin nomenclature that's even used in other languages is the most common of all.
So should we go the route of If there are more than two common names for any species of plant, use the scientific name for the article title or should we go further to say All plant article titles should be scientific names unless and add some exceptions like well-known agricultural species (though some have articles for the product and then another for the botanical description). Am I missing a third option? --Rkitko 04:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I personally would go with All plant article titles should be scientific names unless..., both for uniformity and because I have come to prefer scientific names as being more informative and less ambiguous in almost every case. This will also stop endless bickering about what constitutes "two or more common names" and what to do with regional differences, spelling variations, etc. However, I am open to anything as long as the overall trend is to move to strong convention of using scientifc names over common names in most cases. As long as we develop a clear system of redirects for common names with disambiguation pages of names with multiple taxa before submitting the suggestion to the Naming Convention, we should be fine. I welcome this proposal to write up a new naming convention and will support and help develop it as needed. --NoahElhardt 05:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I've been saying this to anybody who would listen ever since I came to Wikipedia. I'm all for it. It would certainly go a long way towards defusing the arguments and debates over what is the "most common" or "most correct" common name. MrDarwin 12:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggested a litmus test for "common-ness" of a name a while back, but didn't get much reaction either way. The test is - which name seems most appropriate in the body of the article? For instance, does it seem reasonable to replace "oak" with "Quercus" throughout the running text of oak? Or to say E. californica everywhere in California poppy? Empirically from looking at edit histories, it seems that even the experts often use common names in article bodies when it's not absolutely necessary to distinguish species or suchlike. So I suggest that if the writer finds the common name more reasonable in text, that's a strong hint to make the article title match the body. In practice, because of ambiguity and multiple common name concerns, I think the number would be small, probably only a few hundred, but they will tend to be frequently-visited articles that we don't want to have to fight over all the time. Stan 18:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plant Naming Convention Proposal draft

[edit] Problems to solve

  1. The current convention outlined by the Tree of Life WikiProject states: "In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise."
  2. Some plants have one common name, many have multiple common names, while others have no common name at all. In no case are these common names regulated by a governing body.
  3. Currently, arguments exist over which common name to use in a given article title.
  4. Using common names is often problematic for reasons of bias and ambiguity - different common names are used for the same plant in different regions, while some common names apply to multiple taxa.
  5. On the flipside, using only scientific names may make it difficult for lay readers to locate articles.

[edit] Proposal for name page titles

  1. Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following, as determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion on the WikiProject Plants talk page:
    1. Agricultural and horticultural cases in which multiple different products stem from the same scientific name (eg. brussel sprouts, cabbage, broccoli). In such a case, a separate page with the botanical description of the entire species is preferred.
    2. Plants which are economically or culturally significant enough to merit their own page, using the common name as a title, describing their use. Example: Coffee. (A) separate page(s) with the botanical description(s) of the taxa involved, using the scientific name, is preffered.
  2. Common names are to redirect to scientific names.
  3. All known common names for a taxon are to be listed in the plant article.
  4. In cases where multiple taxa share the same common name, a disambiguation page is to be used.

[edit] Advantages of this proposal

  1. Uniformity of article names
  2. NPOV - Common names are regional, while scientific names are recognized worldwide. Using scientific names eliminates arguments over which name is "most common", "unique", "most widely used", etc.
  3. Both lay and non-lay persons can locate articles easily.


I've drafted a naming convention above. Please edit it or post comments below so we can work this into a usable proposal. --NoahElhardt 16:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do this, Noah! It really helped get the process and discussion going. --Rkitko 05:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Comments

Pansy? At the very least, "horticultural" would need to be added to "agricultural". Specifying "all cases" I think is asking for trouble, both in terms of starting fights over articles that have been uncontroversial up to now (rose, oak, maple, pine, etc)), and in discouraging what is already a rather thin population of readers and editors. Stan 18:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
But note that rose, oak, maple, and pine all link to disambiguation pages for these terms, all of which include other plants that sometimes masquerade under those names. MrDarwin 20:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Curtis-- My current understanding is that there can be only one legitimate validly published scientific name for a specific type specimen. Please elaborate on my discussion page, if you care to. Ah, well, this is all beyond comprehension by non-taxonomists.
Saint Louis Code Article 11.1: Each family or taxon of lower rank with a particular circumscription, position, and rank can bear only one correct name, special exceptions being made for 9 families and 1 subfamily for which alternative names are permitted (see Art. 18.5 and 19.7).
"...with a particular circumscription, position, and rank", which covers the Parkinsonia/Cercidium case. All three of these factors are the result of taxonomic judgment, not the application of nomenclatural rules.--Curtis Clark 04:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
See my comment above. KP Botany 17:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The exceptions, Rkitko, should be, imo, that plants with economic and cultural significance (this includes horticulture) SHOULD have a separate page with the common name as the title, and the article itself is ABOUT the economic or cultural uses of the plant. (This was not my idea originally, but another user's.)
My touchstone in this regard is Apple. Almost everyone knows what an apple is, even people who have never heard of Malus domestica or even Pyrus malus, an alternative name (different circumscription). I don't think that a Malus domestica page should be obligatory, but rather it should only exist when there is enough information about the species independent of its cultivation and products to warrant a separate article. And I don't think that an Apple or two weakens the argument for scientific names for almost every other plant.
But ironically, calling the article Zea mays would put an end to the arguments over whether it is corn or maize--Curtis Clark 04:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I really did mean "Economically and Culturally Significant Plants" not agriculture and horticulture. Agriculture and horticulture ignores the multitude of other uses plants are put to by humans. Trees are not always grown for lumber, for example, sometimes they are simply harvested. Medicinal research? Not always agriculture or horticulture. Chlorogalum pomeridianum is an example of a plant with economic and cultural value if you are a California Indian, that does not fall under Agriculture or Horticulture, but many school children in California looking for it on Wikipedia will want to be able to look up soaproot, instead of Chlorogalum pomeridianum. Isn't that the point of common names for certain plants in the first place?
Economically and Culturally Significant Plants encompasses agritulture and horticulture and forestry and ethnobotany and fiber plants and dye plants and all sorts of ethnobotanical uses and pharmaceuticals.
I don't know that any page is obligatory on Wikipedia. Doesn't somebody have to volunteer the writing of the page for it to appear?
And I'm not sure that corn/maize issue would be resolved as Zea mays redirects to a page titled Teosinte and there is no Wikipedia page for Euchlaena luxurians. KP Botany 17:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Plants with economic and cultural significance can and should have those attributes described in an article titled by the common name. It's useful, sensible and direct as people will always be looking for information about the agricultural aspects of coffee, rather than wanting to know what family Coffea arabica is in and how many cotyledons it has. The article titled 'Coffee' is all about the economic uses and history of these uses of coffee for human beings, and includes a link to botanical information about Coffea arabica and other species. The article titled 'Coffea arabica' discusses the plant from a botanical perspective, includes a paragraph about its economic importance with a link to the Main Article About Its Economic Importance.
I agree with Noah's points about redirects for common names and disambiguation pages. In spite of my push for Wikipedians to adopt a convention of using scientific names to title articles, I think that common names, especially of plants, hold cultural significance in their own right that is lost by scientific names, and I find Wikipedia disappointing in its lack of depth concerning common names of plants. So, yes, to disambiguation pages and a clear system of redirects. Bay Laurel should have a disambiguation page, for example, that takes you to either Umbellularia californica or Laurus nobilis, instead of automatically assuming you mean only the latter.
IMO restriction to "official" common names is POV, and including the wealth of common names that exists for many widespread species is encyclopedic.--Curtis Clark 04:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't think a restriction to "official common names" is possible as there is no official authority for common names. Anyone, anywhere, can call any plant anything they like, if it makes it into the common language, it is an official common name. KP Botany 17:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
A page with the common name might have a sentence listing it as the common name in a specified region, listing other common names for the same plant, and linking it to the botanical name for the plant, and maybe an explanation of the common name.
Oregon Myrtle: Oregon myrtle is the common name in Oregon for the evergreen tree, Umbellularia californica. Then why the heck Oregonians call it "myrtle." See Umbellularia californica.
California Bay Laurel/California Bay Tree: California bay laurel is one common name in California for the evergreen tree, Umbellularia californica. It is named for its leaves smelling like, and being used as, a pungent version of the European laurel, Laurus nobilis, of the same family. See Umbellularia californica.
Birding is entirely different from botanizing--birders are sane because they have fewer species to identify. It might be easier to just consider a naming convention for plants.
I agree that we should stick to plants on this, but I wonder how much cultural diversity of bird names was inadvertently destroyed by the AOU.--Curtis Clark 04:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Probably most if not all of it. The discussion of Yucca brevifolia is a good example, the assumption being there are only English-speaking common names for the plant. I suspect the Paiute would disagree with this because the plant provides basketry materials, and important geographical and seasonal indicators to people living in the region. KP Botany 17:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
We naturally focus on English because this is the English WP. The Paiutes can use whatever name they prefer in their WP. Stan 16:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I used that example to show how new words come into a language like English, although I see I did not clarify my purpose, and I apologize for being vague. Many Americans are interested in Indian crafts, basket-making being one of these. For example, in an introduction to Indian basketry by a Miwok, the basket maker used Miwok names for the plants and English-translations of Miwok names. The experienced basket makers in the audience, of all backgrounds, even a British woman, were already familiar with some of the Indian names and translations of these, as this is their vernacular. This is simply one example of an English-speaking peoples, American and English basket makers, who contribute words to the common language from their unique cultural background, and interest, in American Indian basket-making skills.
Most American Indians speak English, this IS their WP, whether or not any language groups have one in another language. In California, plant common names come from Indian languages, from Spanish, from English, and from other sources, and all belong now to the English language as common names for plants. An English speaker need not pick and choose only ones from English or Germanic languages. English is a very adoptive language, and this will always be the case when dealing with common names, that they come from various languages in different regions of the country, depending upon all sorts of factors. And, languages, in general, are dynamic. What is a common name in common usage today may not be tomorrow.
However, again, my post was not clear as to what I meant by my comment. KP Botany 22:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no difficulty from using scientific names if the common name has a small page, calling it a common name for the plant, and listing its etymology. I'm flexible, I just want stability and main articles to be uniform and fully searchable. People want common names, so possibly this will be a useful inclusion? A page with the redirect, including the etymology.
As to which common name to use, this is then taken care of. The common name for Oregon myrtle and the one for California bay have their own little pages. An article about the ethnobotany of Artrhopodium cirratum, for example, would be under its Maori name maikaika, with a redirect to their from New Zealand Rock Lily, a disambiguation page for various plants called maikaika in Maori, and the main page discussing its use by the Maori as a starchy food source.
Absolute yes, imo, to all common names for a taxa being listed somewhere in Wikipedia.
I don't agree with the litmus test for common names being their usage in the article, because it is perfectly correct in an article for a popular audience, to use both the scientific and common name, and to prefer the common name in the text when no confusion arises, when discussing a plant for a popular audience. However, this again begs the question--WHICH common name do you use for the article? Because common names are regionalisms. Do you talk about the California bay in the Umbellularia californica article, or about the Oregon myrtle? Or do you use both? Yet it would be acceptable in the article to use 'bay' (although maybe not myrtle, because it is a common name more accepted for another plant in most regions, hmmm) in the general text. This doesn't mean the article should be titled "California Bay" rather than "Umbellularia californica." Every exception for common names will make all the questions arise, which common name, which region do we prefer for these English speakers. Doing away with common names, other than as their common names, and economically and culturally significant plants, raises exceptions.
Pansy, oak and rose meet the requirements of economically or culturally significant plants and would have their own pages all about their role in human society and culture. Gardening is human culture.
KP Botany 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's another one to put the proposal to the test: Joshua tree. It has exactly one English name that I know of, no ambiguity with other species, and of the human population within its natural range there are maybe 10-20 people that would recognize Yucca brevifolia :-) . Stan 03:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
True. However, if we use the redirect system, anyone searching for Joshua Tree would be instantly brought to the correct page, even though the title on the top might be unfamiliar to them. Is there a problem? --NoahElhardt 03:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
On a side note, [9] lists two other common names: Tree yucca and Yucca palm. I've never heard of these either, but the point remains - common names can be problematic. In this particular case, I doubt anyone would have a problem with using Joshua tree rather than Tree yucca... other cases, however, are not so clear. --NoahElhardt 03:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Yucca brevifolia is also called the Joshua tree yucca and Joshua tree palm in its range. There probably is a Paiute and maybe a Shoshone name for it, also. These might be used in English by basket weavers all over the world. Californians love their native flora and there are probably thousands of California Native Plant Society members using Yucca brevifolia today, and the CNPS and other native plant societies work to teach their members to be able to use both scientific and local common names for plants. Your point that Joshua tree is an example of a very well accepted common name remains.KP Botany 17:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
If article titles don't matter, then they could all be like "Adkjna874lvken0", with all the appropriate redirs, right? If they don't matter, then why do you want to rename a bunch of articles that are under common names now? Why do we have pages and pages of long-established intricate policy on all kinds of naming conventions if none of it matters? The basic situation is that yes, they do matter. Unexpected redirects are disorienting for readers, especially when the title is radically different, not just a variant spelling or capitalization; it takes reading part of the article to find out if the right place has been reached. Unexpected redirects are often vandalism, and need to be doublechecked, which takes time away from just using WP. Poor choice of titles is bad for printouts, and messes up Google searching. Anything that goes against the general vein of WP practice tends to start edit wars that suck up huge amounts of time. Titling is not the most important problem facing plant articles, but we still want a standard that will hold up to the pitiless scrutiny of the rest of the WP community. I personally believe that at least 98% of plant articles will ultimately end up under scientific names, and that's good, but setting up rules to try to force the number to 99% will cause more trouble than it's worth. Stan 04:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Stan, these guidlines are useful for dealing with ambiguity as it arises. However there is no need to move pages wholesale to make then comply to some convention - when the overriding convention on Wikipedia will most likely always be to use the most common English name. Also since this would effect more than this wikiproject shouldn't this discussion be taking place of the Village pump where more people can have input--Peta 04:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The reason for discussing it here first is to separate the wheat from the chaff and organize our thoughts before presenting it to the community. An unorganized argument will always fail. The intention is to approach a wider community for input once we can come to a reasonable consensus here. As for dealing with ambiguity as it arises, do you mean that we await an argument over the common name title of an article before applying these guidelines? Or say we come upon an article that notes in the text more than one common name--under these proposed guidelines, should we move the page to the scientific name and make the proper redirects immediately in anticipation of a disagreement over the title? Essentially, I'm asking what your opinion is on when we would apply these standards: proactively or reactively? --Rkitko 05:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
"Stately proactive" works the best for new policy - you need to be proactive so the policy is clearly real, plus lots of people follow along with what they see others doing. But changing everything in one day doesn't give much chance to deal with unforeseen situations, while spreading it out over a couple months (a family/day, perhaps) allows for course correction, and working with recalcitrant editors one at a time, rather than as an organized mob with the pitchforks and flaming torches. 1/2 :-) Stan 14:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
So are you saying, Stan, that this naming convention would be OK with you as long as it is instated in a manner and pace that allows changes and conflicts to be discussed as they come up, and exceptions to be made where needed? Again, feel free to insert clauses into the above draft - it is only that, a draft, right now. --NoahElhardt 14:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
My sense is that collectively we could probably discuss and come to consensus on any particular article, but that we don't know how to express it as precise guidance for randoms who come along looking for a policy. We could take APG II indecisiveness as inspiration :-) and simply say that we recognize that some cases are not obvious, and that if a dispute arises, a notification is posted on this page for people to join discussion on the article's talk page. (But please, no voting!) It's even possible that the number of acceptable common-name articles will be sufficiently small that we can *enumerate* all of them on a subpage of this project, and anybody who wants to add to it must petition specially. Stan 18:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You may be right there - a subpage with accepted common name page titles makes a sense to me. Basically, there are only a limited number of common names that über-lay people will be searching for. Anyone searching for Rajah Brooke's Pitcher Plant will know enough to not freak out when the page they are redirected to has Nepenthes rajah pasted across the top. If people are well-versed enough to know common names of plants not on the list, then its time they start recognizing and feeling comfortable around scientific names. How do others feel about this idea? --NoahElhardt 18:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
"Unexpected redirects are disorienting for readers, especially when the title is radically different, not just a variant spelling or capitalization; it takes reading part of the article to find out if the right place has been reached." Yes, now that Curtis brings up the corn/maize issue, I can see where this is already a major problem on Wikipedia. Zea mays redirects to teosinte, as does Zea mexicana and corn redirects to maize. KP Botany 17:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Why regulate for a common sense approach, take Banksia with 76 species article, as an example all the species have articles each used the latin name where it a common name exists the article states this in the first sentence of the lead see Banksia brownii (Banksia brownii was recently promoted to FA) as an example. Where the are common names that are well known then the common name is a redirect to the taxo name. Gnangarra 05:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

One point of consideration is that the use of Taxa naming isnt static, taking my previous example Banksia a number of species have been either changed from subspecies level to species or visa versa. The is also ongoing disputes within the the botanical community of the current evaluations. This isnt isolated only to plants, The Australian Ringneck also recently under went major changes to it species / subspecies levels that altered a lot of the taxa naming for the subspecies which where previously considered seperate species. If its required that taxa naming is used for all articles then it also needs to identify at what point the article names should be altered and how. Cultivars where there is sufficient information and need for a seperate article how are those articles to be named because we could end up with Banksia integrifolia subsp. integrifolia cult. Austraflora Roller Coaster as an article name Gnangarra 06:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
"If it's required that taxa naming is used for all articles then it also needs to identify at what point the article names should be altered and how." Good point. There is a reason behind this current madness in the biological sciences, though, we've now got to incorporate DNA evidence into an existing system. If botany itself is in high flux, should users be able to expect a nice safe home when getting real information?
As to article names and search engines, if you google for "Prickly banksia" you get 32 articles returned, but if you search for "Banksia aculeata" you get 132 articles. You may get a LOT more for apple than for Malus domestica, but if you want to know some botanical information, you may have a hard time finding it running through a billion articles about apple.
I think I'm going to give up. Scientific names hold a value, but some people just don't see it, and I'm not sure it's something I can convince people of. Maize/corn/Zea mays/Zea mexicana is already a hopelessly tangled confusion because of the use of common names. I see this all the time on Wikipedia, confusion created entirely by the use of common names making articles and the information they contain inaccessible and sometimes wrong for the unitiated layman. Scientific names arose and were eagerly accepted in the 18th century just because more people were interested in the natural sciences and more people came and saw the confusion created everywhere by the failure to standardize names. KP Botany 17:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You're relatively new, right? Policymaking on WP is usually a slow and frustrating process, but well worth the effort - it's positively magical when hundreds of editors pick up on the policy and fix all the problems while you're sleeping, in articles you didn't even know existed. The existing confusion doesn't come from the common names, it comes from lack of policy. To take an example, taxoboxes were once the most godawful tangles of raw HTML, and every taxobox was randomly different from all the others. Nowadays they are so simple and clean that only the oldest of oldtimers remembers they were once a major source of trouble. Stan 18:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm new, and started off pretty frustrated due to a lack of policy in a different area, but got through that with some terrific help, and would like to contribute.
This lack of policy is what I am trying to address, it results in confusion, impedes accessibility for all users, makes it impossible to tell how complete Wikipedia is, and generally results in experts running for the hills rather than spending time trying to wade through the confusion in order to contribute. And I'm willing to compromise on what I think is useful (not that not compromising will do anything) in order to gain coherence here--and because some people have some valid points about compromise, in particular economically and culturally significant plants listed under common names.
But, really, I think the argument holding any coherent policy formation back is that common names are convenient for some folks, (that's what common names ARE!, convenient names for local flora and fauna!) and they should be used whenever it's convenient for those folk, even if they're confusing and inaccurate and uncontrolled and not standardized and not governed by any authority and not convenient for everyone.
In the end, what it really does is keep people with some real knowledge to contribute away from Wikipedia because they can't wade through the morass--they don't have time, because Wikipedia is not their area of expertise, something else is, the something that Wikipedians want them to contribute, in general. And I would rather spend my time expanding palaeobotany articles than making policy--of course, what I really want is for all of you to have already made the policy I'm most comfortable with, but really, anything will do instead.
I would still like some input from folks about standard formats for plant families, as the basal angiosperms need cleaned up, and expanded in order to be useful. But the plant families are all over the place in style, and some use plant families defined in one system, then place them taxonomically according to another system, with and without common names of the families, and etc., etc. But, again, I fear wading in to the confusion! KP Botany 20:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


I agree we need to establish consistancy, I'm also confusing the arguement by asking the question of how this or that fits to the policy. In general what is being done is this such 95% of articles are using this already, what is trying to be created is a policy for the 5% which are created by people without botanical knowledge. With the example of Corn/Maze maybe there should be two articles the first covers commercial and historical type information with a brief summary of ecology linking to the article under the taxa name that covers the botanical information, this article has a brief history/commercial use section that links to Corn for the more detailed information. Gnangarra
I disagree that you (or anyone) are confusing the argument by asking how something in particular fits into the policy--this makes for clearer thinking up front. Plus, everyone has, thus far, contributed, imo, useful insight into how to make the policy work, no matter whether I agree with their ideas for the policy or not--again, imo. KP Botany 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that people without much botanical knowledge who are arguing strongly for titles of all or most articles by their common names are, unfortunately, limiting their future knowledge of plants with this personal strategy, also. This is one reason why it is important to try to find a way to make scientific names a normal part of research for laymen--it increases their power to understand the topic in a way that common names cannot. KP Botany 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
There are probably cases where folks who are not botanically sophisticated could write a more useful article on a topic, particularly when it comes to a topic like apples or corn--a botanist might miss the main focus of the article: how humans use the product. Then there are problems that arise internal with that lack of botanical knowledge and lead to nonsense, like "Mazes have been built with walls and rooms, with hedges, turf, or with paving stones of contrasting colors or designs, or in fields of crops such as corn or, indeed, maize." From the article on Maze . Hmmmm, in fields of corn or, indeed, corn? KP Botany 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
But remember that "corn" in English originally meant any sort of grain (hence "barleycorn"), so that a wheat maze would be generically a corn maze, and many people in England might well still understand it this way. I do agree that the wording in the article is strange, but check out the discussion page to see how emotional people can get over something as simple as a common name. More evidence that common names are by their very nature POV.--Curtis Clark 14:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Names alone don't express POV, but they do affect communication in critical ways. To some extent the idea of using Latin has been a failure, in that 200 years ago every educated person knew Latin, and so "brevifolia" was just as meaningful as "shortleaf" is to English speakers - but now Latin education has withered away, and the scientific names have become random unpronounceable strings used almost exclusively by specialists. Bird people have reacted by formalizing the use of English, a similar effort is apparently contemplated for mammals. Fish people have been regularizing English names, commercial fishermen not being inclined to take up ichthyological systematics. :-) Puts WP in a difficult position, because our audience includes both scientific and lay. Stan 16:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I emphatically don't buy the "random unpronounceable strings": ask any nine-year-old boy how to pronounce Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor or even Deinonychus. And if a commercial fisherman uses a name different from a fishmonger ("Chilean sea bass" comes to mind), how can that be anything that a different point of view?--Curtis Clark 03:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Heh, touche. Perhaps "hard-to-read" is a better term - humans are much better at learning spoken words than written ones. I go to Nevada Native Plant Society meetings and hear many plant sci names for the first time there, often they're not nearly as complicated as they looked in print... On POV, it's kind of stretching to ascribe very much POV to choice of names, also a little dangerous, because there are many people who would fight edit wars *against* scientific names because it's a "science POV". When you invoke a core policy like NPOV, it's an invitation for every non-expert to come in and pile on. Stan 21:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Even more than 200 years ago Botanical Latin was a language all its own, and Latin was already falling out of favor among the educated. There are a lot of words that had to be adopted or corrupted for Botanical Latin nomenclature, for example, because ancient Greek and Latin herbals did not include such intensive morphology as used by Linneaus to distinguish species.
Commercial fishermen often fish just one fish per season, or even per year depending upon how lucrative that fish is, and don't necessarily need to know a lot of fish names. Yet fisheries sites link to PDFs with Latin names prominant for information about the fish species. I suspect no general fisherman has to know a thousand fish names. Bird watchers? Well, they have fewer species in any area to concern themselves with, a single paperback covers all of California, while the Jepson Manual weighs a ton, if you've ever had to backpack it. And the bird names are standardized, as I understand, for just one country. So, they're American common names, not English speaking--not sure of this.
The Jepson Manual weighs a ton even if you don't have to backpack it.

The American Ornithologists' Union names are indeed American. They are also more highly regulated than scientific names, in that they standardize "generally accepted" science and don't allow for alternative circumscriptions.--Curtis Clark 03:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately plants are a bit different, there are even difficult questions about just what a species is that are less easy to answer with Mayr-like certainty that species really exist in botany.
As one who spent a career studying plant speciation, IMO this is totally bogus.--Curtis Clark 03:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
What's bogus, that Mayr thinks species are real entities, something I agree with, but is not particularly popular in these days of doing away with species, or that species are more difficult in botany than elsewhere, or what? What about all the hybrid oaks that even lugging the Jepson Manual around won't help you identify? "Many more hybrids have been named but are not included here." Are they really hybrids or species? Plants aren't different? KP Botany 19:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
"...that species really exist in botany." I gave a presentation many years ago, of which I only retain the abstract. More recently, a graduate student looked at shrubby Mimulus, a group in which hybridization is reputed to have eliminated the species boundaries; her thesis and a poster are available online. Hybrids have to be examined globally. If your only experience were a mule farm, "horse" and "donkey" might seem like abstractions, and looking at a hybrid oak, or manzanita, or monkeyflower, or Encelia, can be rather daunting. But ouside of the areas of hybridization, the species maintain their distinctiveness, and in the cases of some oaks, have for more than 30 million years.
Species are indeed real entities; they are the units of phylogeny.--Curtis Clark 21:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The common names for the thousands of plants in California that don't already have them would just require exceptions every time, or another organization tasked with assigning common names for the unnamed, while other plants hog a dozen names to themselves. Two lay people talking about a plant using common names, don't know if they are discussing the same plant by name alone. They may be using the same name and discussing two different plants, or using two different names and discussing the same plant.
The educated lay person will wind up having to use scientific names for plants at some point, unless they only look up one plant, or economically valuable plants their entire lives. Limiting lay people to common names alone does not benefit the dissemination of knowledge, it simply limits that particular lay person to what knowledge they can find.
Why not find a way of making scientific names more accessible? The alternative, common names for some, scientific names for others, just keeps people out of the world of science, otu of exchanging information, and out of knowing exactly what information they are exchanging, when the whole intention of scientific names is to share the identity and knowledge of an organism with ease. I can send a scientific name to a speaker of Dutch or Polish and she can know what plant I am talking about. But what if she translates the common name, and the common name in her native tongue does not allude to the same aspect of the plant? If it's a weed here and native there, with a cultural value, this may well be the case. Scientific names are simply tools for discussing organisms and making sure we're discussing the same thing. Laymen can and do use them all of the time. Encyclopedias are about sharing human knowledge, not limiting it.
Pronouncing Latin plant names is not that difficult. Wikipedia can include an article on just that topic if necessary and helpful. One vowel sound per syllable, and pronounce each syllable has gotten me through years of discussing organisms with scientists. Only a non-scientist has ever corrected my pronunciation, and only once. IMO policies which exclude knowledge from a population, which is what I see using common names as doing, should be very carefully looked at for what they will achieve. I don't see using common names as ultimately making easier the dispersal of botanical knowledge to lay people. I see it as exculsionary. Science belongs to the world, as does our biodiversity. It's not the private domain of an elite few. Bringing scientific names to laymen breaks down barriers, it doesn't erect them, imo. Frankly, imo, we should be forcing scientists to include common names for plants in their articles, rather than removing scientific names from ours.
Anyway, that's my opinion, again. Scientific names are time-honored valuable tools. People were so amazed at how valuable binomial nomenclature was when Linneaus published his books that they quickly adopted his techniques without debate, only later codifying them. We live in an international world and they hold the same value today as they did in the 18th century. The plant world is too big and too dispersed and too international and too complex to go with common names as the rule. Common names come from many languages and there will be major disagreements about which to use because most people will prefer the ones from the culture the identify most with. KP Botany 22:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I've said this before, but I'll say it again: common names are an important part of cultural heritage, and standardizing common names standardizes culture. There was a time when most people were familiar with at least the commonest 500 or so organisms in their habitat, and had common names for all, which might very well be different from the common names used 500 km away, even though the language of both areas was nominally English. It seems to me that as Wikipedians we should use scientific names in most cases in order to provide a framework to enumerate and preserve this diversity.--Curtis Clark 03:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
"It seems to me that as Wikipedians we should use scientific names in most cases in order to provide a framework to enumerate and preserve this diversity." I like that. I find common names inconvenient and am often ready to do away with them completely because I've memorized so few, but from my ancient background in cultural anthropology and studying ethnobotany of plants I know they have tremendous value to the users and can give all humans clue to another's culture. Also, common names often have interesting origins, giving the linguist in all of us a little extra information. KP Botany 19:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
the other point I raised was the assumption of adopting this as policy, and then asking a hypothetical how does this fit question. When a similar naming issue occured at the Wikiproject Australia it wasnt until the hypothetical how do we name this started to be discussed that ommitions and errors in the suggested policy were highlighted and addressed. Gnangarra 23:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it sounds lovely, always, until you try to put it into practice and run into an uncovered exception. Excellent point. I do like things to be done my way and quickly (who doesn't really?), but appreciate that it is usually neither desirable (either my way or quickly) nor efficient because of the time wasted in failing to consider what can go wrong. KP Botany 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
suggest the policy states ...that all common names are either a straight redirect or a dab page withs links to the correct taxa names.
for cultivars they use the common name with (cultivar). and that the 1st sentence of the lead states the taxaname linked to that article
example:-
Banksia integrifolia subsp. integrifolia cult. Austraflora Roller Coaster this cultivar would have the article Banksia Austraflora Roller Coaster (cultivar)
the lead would open 'Banksia Austraflora Roller Coaster is a cultivar from the Banksia species Banksia integrifolia subspecies integrifolia ...

how does this sound. That still leaves the question of how and when to alter page names if there is a change in naming. Gnangarra 04:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably the most common form of existing cultivar article just uses single quotes around the cultivar name, following the rules in cultivar. As for responding to nomenclatural changes, I think it's sufficient to just let people move the article whenever they become aware of the change - ideally adding a mention of the authority in the references section. Articles get moved all the time; an energetic person could probably unilaterally move a thousand plant articles to sci names before anybody even remarked on it. Stan 05:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking back at the proposal, I don't see that we're actually in much disagreement here. There is already an exception for "significant" cases, so how it works in practice really depends on how often the exception is granted. If we add to the policy that the exceptions are granted on a case-by-case basis, then they will tend to be very few, because most people will go along with the sci names rather than do the work of assembling the evidence for the exception. If someone does go to that effort and comes up with good justifications, then those will be the cases where the common name does make for a sensible title. With this edit, I think the policy is sufficiently strong to expand into a proposed new naming convention. Stan 22:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Okay, so most everyone seems to have come to some sort of consensus. So what's the next step? Let's keep the ball rolling. --NoahElhardt 15:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Create Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) and link it in at the obvious place in Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) has the right boilerplate to start with, just hack it up. Talk page should be seeded with a link back to here, so busyb...uh, esteemed colleagues who have the naming convention page on their watchlist can get the background. There is a section at the end for "proposed guidelines", but I don't think we need to be that timid. Stan 19:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
So should I just slap in the proposal as it stands now (above)? --NoahElhardt 22:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It'd probably be good to follow the format used on the fauna page.--Peta 05:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
What fauna page? Link please? KP Botany 19:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to get in the "case-by-case exception" too, but otherwise yes. Stan 03:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure things will crop up that we didn't think of, but I'm fine with it as is, thus far. KP Botany 19:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, I've started the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) page. It really only deals with the Article Titles as discussed above, but other material can be incorporated from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) or something. What do you think? --NoahElhardt 23:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look it over. Thanks for posting the links. I am rather shocked to find that native New Zealand birds in Wikipedia are given "official" common names from Australia, and this is the example of using "official" common names on the Faunal Naming Conventions page! I think the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) is exactly what happens if you use common names, though: you wind up dismissing an entire culture. I suspect this might be because Australia has official guidelines for common names, but New Zealand doesn't? Curtis, do you know? I don't think this will be a robust policy for those whose culture has been made irrelevant. Even more I appreciate this attempt to set an international protocal for plant articles using scientific names and continuing to include as many common names as possible. Thanks to everyone who continued to remind me how important common names are. KP Botany 00:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles to be expanded

I've been taking a bit of a break but still keeping an eye on some articles, and I am starting to see the talk pages for hundreds of plant articles added to a category called Category:Articles to be expanded. I'm afraid I don't understand the purpose of creating such a category and using it to tag pages upon pages of articles. How is this different from the existing stub tags? There are thousands of articles in Wikipedia that could be expanded, we all know it, there are thousands of stub tags out there already, and I don't think tagging thousands more with a "please expand this article" message is going to accomplish much unless it can magically cure us of the need to sleep, or the need to spend time earning a living (just a couple of the things that are interfering with my own time and ability to edit Wikipedia articles!). MrDarwin 00:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't see the plant articles, just tons of talk pages that say they need to be expanded, many of them connected to well done, complete and credible articles. Someone (88.7.53.191) seems to think that talk pages are something that should have lots on them, whether or not it is needed. Or maybe this is a bot or something? It makes the Articles to be expanded page worthless, though, Mr. Darwin, so your suggestion that stub tags are sufficient (which seems to be the same thing as an "Article that needs to be expanded" tag to a beginner) is accepted in essence, if not in practice. KP Botany 01:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess I see it as pointless for two reasons: first, it's telling us something we all already know--that the vast majority of the thousands of plant species (and in many cases genus) articles are little more than stubs and really need to be expanded--and second, creating a category for hundreds of thousands of completely different kinds of articles isn't the least bit helpful when most editors work on particular kinds of articles and there are only so many editors to work on those articles in the first place. (I could understand adding plant stub tags, as that would at least bring plant-related articles to the attention of the editors who specialize on plant-related articles.)
I'm not going to remove the tags as it would take forever, and would probably be labeled as vandalism, but to see the plant articles that are being so tagged by one editor, see Bhadani's contributions page. This guy must be spending every waking moment doing this. I've already posted a comment on his talk page; is anybody else willing to send him a message that this tagging isn't particularly helpful? MrDarwin 13:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed a few but only from those articles I've personally edited in the past; I sure don't have time to go through the hundreds of others! The main page for Category:Articles to be expanded says "This category is for articles that are beyond a stub, but still need to be expanded with additional information or details" so I'm going to recommend that the expansion tag be deleted from any plant article that already has a stub tag; in most cases if there isn't a stub tag, it would be more useful to add one in place of the expansion tag. MrDarwin 14:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Another in a long series of semi-pointless tags I'm afraid. Tags and categories don't require any reading or research, and so there are a lot more editors fiddling with those than adding actual content. There are some articles I created two or even three years ago, and the edit history between then and now consists solely of tagging, categorization, and spelling fixes, with not a single addition to my original content. Stan 05:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually completely pointless, in my opinion. I checked several articles that were so tagged, and in every case they already had plant stub tags. I've gone ahead and deleted the expand tag from such articles, but so far only ones I have personally edited in the past. MrDarwin 14:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This might be a better discussion to have on the Village Pump (WP:VPP), since it's a mish-mash of articles from all over the place. I've seen this tag popping up on my watchlist too over the past few days, and like you I just don't see the point (rather than feeding someone's editcountitis). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 14:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I did find the reason behind Bhadani's obsessive adding of useless, pointless and redundant tags. He/she is devoted to climbing the List of Wikipedians by number of edits page, as indicated on the homepage. In other words, suffering from Editcountitis--I still don't quite understand if edit count is the sole means to being an administrator and what being one does other than make you obsessed with edit counts. I also learned what a sock puppet is this week, but have decided I've learned too much in certain areas and contributed too little of value. I am working on fixing, or at least making usable, botany and biology articles in obscure areas. I just redid the systematics article and would appreciate comments, also I'm rewriting the embryophytes article and would appreciate comments as it goes up.

What in Plants is most in need of being refurbished/expanded to make the botany on Wikipedia better? What stubs, in other words, are most important? I think there are articles outside of taxa that need work that might be best got under control before moving systematically through families, genera and species. Suggestions? Locations to look? Thanks--it is more fun trying to put together something useful than picking at little bits here and there. KP Botany 03:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about stubs, but a series of topics I think might be underrepresented are communions of plants - groups of plants often growing together with their relations. Examples would be Atriplici-Cirsietum arvensis, Caricion davallianae, Magnocaricion, Calthion, Molinion caeruleae. 06:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the monocot and dicot pages are both pretty weak and fundamental. For general botany related topics, plant physiology is a stub and the page on plant anatomy is basically - and soon to be technically nonexistent if someone doesn't write a decent summary guide to the subject.--Peta 06:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There are some taxa that are unusually scientifically interesting, such as Eriogonum, and all the article has is the tantalizing mention of "speciation", without any explanation. Botany is supposed to be a fascinating subject, right? :-) Put in what's most fascinating, then if you referred to something in the process and its description is inadequate, expand on that article a little, and so on. Different people have different habits, but empirically our best material tends to come from a burst of enthusiasm for a topic (whether expert or amateur), while dutiful grinding through lists gets wearisome and uninspiring. (In fact that's where many stubs come from - people start articles before having assembled the collection of interesting facts to report.) Stan 14:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, I will look at these, as they all interest me. The plant communities page is a particularly painful disaster, one of the problems of using an old source for a modern and dynamic science, and could turn people completely off of using Wikipedia, and the plant anatomy lack of a page is shameful, considering how much basic plant anatomy is used in all the species and family articles. Stan, I won't lose sight of what you say, because I'm naturally lazy enough that if it doesn't obsess me, I won't touch it. Excellent point though, and I will add it's as wearisome and uninspiring for both the producer and the recipient. KP Botany 17:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
PS I am more obsessed with Eriogonum than with many other things in botany. KP Botany 17:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paratype

Somebody might want to keep an eye on the Paratype article and its most recent edits. I simply don't have time to deal with another Nomen nudum, Nomen conservandum, etc.-type dispute right now. MrDarwin 18:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is incomprehensibly useless, as are most biological type articles on Wikipedia, due only in part to their heavily pedantic writing style. And its owner seems determined that it remain so, so it might not be worth anyone's time to keep their eye on it. (Although, one of the articles was recently reworded to mostly English.) There should probably be a Wikipedia warning tag for articles like this.
I have an awkward writing style, and I greatly appreciate the many members of WP:Plants who translate my sometimes heavy and pedantic, and sometimes just awkward, articles and corrections into Encyclopediac English for the masses. Thanks. KP Botany 22:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
There is much, much more discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, although you may not have the stamina (or stomach) to read through it all. I am taking a short break from Wikipedia and don't expect to be doing much editing in the next few days. However, I am very glad to see more editors taking part in Wikipedia who apparently have some knowledge of systematic botany. Good luck. MrDarwin 01:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute at Cannabis

There is currently a dispute concerning WP:NPOV#Undue weight taking place at Talk:Cannabis. The taxobox lists three species in the genus. The article text says "Whether the different strains of Cannabis constitute a single species (Cannabis sativa L.) or multiple species has been a contentious issue for well over two centuries" and goes on to describe the position of Schultes, recent work by Hillig and Mahlberg, and states that "Some authors now refer to C. indica as the subspecies Cannabis sativa subsp. indica and C. ruderalis as the variety Cannabis sativa var. ruderalis reflecting the fact they may not be distinct enough to be classified as separate species. Several other botanical names have also been applied" with reference to IPNI. Small and Cronquist (1976) is given as a reference, but not discussed.

This gives equal weight to the opinions of small minorities while barely mentioning and then marginalizing what seems to be the most widely accepted view. ITIS,APNI,GRIN, Plants

Comments would be greatly appreciated. Chondrite 18:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain these are real opinions, but rather compilations of sources. When I write up plant articles about a specific species I'm not allowed to use IPNI for name verification, or any of these other sources you've listed. I believe the current research is at the stage where one recent authority considers it to be a single species while another divides it into 3. I have not read either source. Has anyone doing the discussing read these sources, 2005ish, one a monograph, the other an article or chapter in a book? Frankly, there are just too many words over there, something I have been lately guilty of in Afghanistan. Those wanting 3 species have hemmed and hawed repeatedly about 'species' calling them subraces, cultivars, admitting it's only the language of breeders. It would have been better to just close it, saying, "You consider them only races, so list only one species." IMO. Why do the breeders want them to be species so badly? I doubt I would be any help, so I'll stay out of it, unless and until I read either source. KP Botany 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Can I clarify that the article at Cannabis is attempting to describe a debate within the plant science community, and in order to accurately represent the weight of the various arguments, it would be useful to determine what, if any, Scientific consensus currently exists? It seems that compilations of sources such as the links provided above would give a fair indication of just that.
Recent work cited in support of multi-species arguments include: Hillig and Mahlberg (2004), Green(2005) and New Scientist. The work described in New Scientist apparently did not end up getting published in FSI or any other major journal. Hillig and Mahlberg may be "right" but at the same time may not yet be "widely accepted."
"Lumpers versus splitters" in this genus goes back to Lamarck. In the 1960s and 1970s this acquired some legal importance as several attempts were made in the US and Canada to defend against criminal prosecution on the basis that "Cannabis sativa L" is proscribed by law, but the material in question was derived from C. indica or C. ruderalis. Schultes and Emboden (splitters) participated in some of these cases on behalf of the defense, while Small and Cronquist (lumpers) participated on behalf of the prosecution. This hasn't been a legal issue for a long time, but might be one factor contributing to current popularity of multi-species models in the cannabis community.
-- Chondrite 23:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flagging of fossil taxa?

As I was looking today at the pages on plant classfication, and some of the other pages for higher ranked taxa within angiosperms, I noted a huge number of redlinked family names I had never heard of (e.g., see the APG II system article). I am supposing - maybe incorrectly - that some of these are fossil taxa, which would explain why they are red, why I haven't heard of them, and why their placement in the classification is so uncertain. However, I am curious as to why, if these are fossils, there is no use of the dagger, which traditionally indicates fossil taxa, and is easy enough to insert in WP articles. Is there no perceived value among botanists of knowing extinct from extant taxa? If there is, why not insert a clause into the Project guidelines asking editors to clearly indicate fossil taxa? Dyanega 18:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The APG system only treats extant taxa; the redlinked families are simply those for which no article exists (yet). Many of them are new families, or old and long-synonymized families that have been resurrected, as molecular phylogenies show that many of the traditionally recognized plant families are paraphyletic or polyphyletic. Angiosperm classification is in a state of rapid flux right now, and the dust probably won't settle for several more years. Unfortunately there are relatively few botanical editors at Wikipedia, and even fewer with access to the relevant literature. MrDarwin 18:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I think some of the reds are monogeneric, and could just be redirected to the appropriate genus, with a note in the genus article, but as MrDarwin sez, one needs the right literature as authority. I haven't been to the library myself in ages... Stan 05:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at one of the red links, and this seems to be a small but normal APG-family, the french wiki had a stub on it which I partially translated. TeunSpaans 08:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Teun, that was very helpful. As it turns out this family has only existed since 1985 (although the genus itself was described in 1840). I just spent about an hour doing a relatively minor rewrite of the article, primarily providing additional information, references, and links. And that was starting with an article that somebody else had already written. This is a good example of why there are so many redlinked families in Wikipedia; actually it's amazing how few there are, considering the short time that Wikipedia has existed, and the limited number of editors available for writing or editing articles. MrDarwin 15:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks like good work, MrDarwin! TeunSpaans 20:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angiosperm Phyologeny website, recommended citation

Three years after its publication, the APG II system is already gathering cobwebs. In addition to APG II, the Missouri Botanical Garden's Angiosperm Phylogeny website is cited and linked in numerous plant articles although in most cases its author (Peter F. Stevens) is not mentioned. As this is apparently the work of a single individual and the AP website is not the work of, or directly affiliated with, the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (the website and the APG have been confused in some articles) I would recommend that it be cited as the website itself suggests it be cited (while including a link to the website), e.g.:

Stevens, P. F. (2001 onwards). Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Version 7, May 2006.

Because the website is continuously updated, including the version and date will alert readers of an article that a particular version was referenced, and that the link may take them to a version updated since then. For the most part it follows the APG II system, but is much more up-to-date, incorporates the results of many recent references published since 2003, and is much more informative. It also differs from the APG II system in several respects, largely on the basis of this more recent research. Particularly because many botanical articles use the APG II classification, which is already out of date, for many groups it's critical to reference something more recent. I would also suggest that anybody using or citing this website read its introduction carefully. I'm not sure how this new (post 2003) data might be incorporated into the Taxoboxes, as those apparently reflect the APG II classification. In general I have not added or edited taxoboxes, in part because they represent a particular POV and may not reflect up-to-date information. MrDarwin 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Community ban of Brya?

User:Brya has been blocked from editing and there is a discussion going on here as to whether this should be a temporary or indefinite block or ban. If you have an opinion on whether Brya should be blocked from further editing indefinitely, I have started a separate poll here. MrDarwin 19:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Experts needed: Talk:Vaccinium vitis-idaea

Could both a UK and a US expert please comment on that discussion? Perhaps experts from other countries could help too. Thanks! --Espoo 07:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help on species name

I took this ptotos in Turkey this year, tr:Kullanıcı:Ugur Basak/galeri, but don't know their species name. Can anyone help on this? Thanks --Ugur Basak 11:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

tr:Resim:Resim15.jpg appears to be fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium). --Rkitko 18:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical plants

Hello! I live in the Amazon and would love to contribute to the Plants project - not articles, as I do not know much about botany, but images. However, I do not know where to start or even how to go about sharing the pictures I take. I suppose I could post them on Commons (to which I already contribute), and have someone identify the plants and put them on their respective Wikipedia pages, but this may be too complcated a plan. What do you think? How may I help out? Marialadouce 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion: If you have self made photos of plant or animal species, please consider uploading them on commons. If you upload them on the english wiki, only the english wiki can use them. If you upload them at commons, all wikipedias (english, german, french, spanish, etc) can use your photo with the same ease as if it resides on their own wikipedia. You will have a much wider public for your cecropia pictures. See also commons:Category:Urticaceae
In fact, there is a project going on commons:Commons:WikiProject Plants to photograph all species of plants. Pix from the amazon region would be very, very welcome, especially if you can somehow which species they belong too.

TeunSpaans 19:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

People do post-upload identification all the time - they even have a special place commons:Category:Unidentified plants, so upload away. What I've discovered from doing photos in the field is that it can be very hard to get a species id from just one or two photos. ID chances are better if you include shots of the base of the plant, the back sides of flowers, closeups of leaves and stems, etc. Don't forget shots showing the overall setting - river bank, etc, and mention the location. (At least in Nevada, it can matter on which side of the mountain range the picture was taken.) Stan 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! You have all been very welcoming. KP Botany asked me where I lived, to gather as much information as possible on the plants in my photos. I live in Kourou, French Guiana - a faraway, forgotten outpost of France. Not much attention is paid to this little corner of the world, thus leaving the rainforest largely untouched (I think about 97% or so of Guiana is essentially rainforest). There are problems, of course, due to gold mining (mercury is dumped in the rivers), but generally it's a very green place.
I've uploaded various random images to Commons before, mostly of Kourou and some pertaining to articles I've translated for French and English Wikpedia, so I think I'll be able to upload pictures of plants more or less easily starting tomorrow. If I run into any problems, I'll be sure to ask over at commons:Commons:WikiProject Plants, which I just joined. I expect I'll be stuffing the commons:Category:Unidentified plants soon with all kinds of mysterious (to me) flora. I'm rather curious to know what exactly I'm living among.
Happy gardening! Marialadouce 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Commons:Image:Cecropia1_frenchguiana.jpg Possible Cecropia. Or not. Having seen the photos KP Botany linked to on my Talk page, I am no longer sure if this is a Cecropia. I have, however, seen the kind pictured in KP's examples. I just have to remember where I have seen them before in town so I can go take pictures of them soon. Marialadouce 21:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Almost certainly not Cecropia (the leaves are simple and entire, Cecropia leaves should be deeply lobed or compound). Maybe a Diospyros, but it could be a Mora or even a mango. Guettarda 04:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Possibly a member of the Lauraceae, also. The leaves are rather generic, so more information would have to be known, but not a Cecropia. When this tree flowers, get some pictures, though. I've been looking at the flora of French Guiana and it is very interesting. KP Botany 21:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I agree, it could be a Lauraceae as well. The smell of the leaves & the inner bark's a good clue there. Guettarda 23:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Kourou not so forgotten as you might think - not only do I have an extensive collection of the stamps back when French Guiana issued its own, but the university library here just happens to have a two-volume work on the plants of French Guiana. I never imagined I might have an opportunity to use it... Stan 02:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Ecologically it's very important, but politically it's seen as a backwater, which is why infrastructure and pretty much anything one takes for granted in Europe - big supermarkets, well-stocked libraries, good hospitals - is sadly lacking. I suspect racism is also a factor (most people here are descendants of African slaves). This morning I'll be out and about, so I will take my camera along and perhaps take a picture of the elusive Cecropia whose location(s) in town I have forgotten. I may also take out a book on tropical (Antilles-Guiana-Réunion) gardening from the small library so I can help with finding the scientific names of the plants in my photos. Cheers. Marialadouce 11:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another plant-stub sub-type proposed: Ranunculales-stub

I've proposed a further order-level stub type for the plants, as the parent is oversized again: please see the proposal, here. Alai 05:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project banner

A bee pollinating a water-lily
A bee pollinating a water-lily

This looks like a great project, but I can't tell if you all have a project banner or not yet. If you don't, I would ask you to consider whether this one looks like something you might want to use. Thanks. Badbilltucker 20:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice banner, but I know nothing about banners. Will posting the banners put the pages on a list? Possibly a less derived plant as the image? Maybe a water lily? Although I guess the rose has suitable interesting horticultural aspects. KP Botany 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice banner, but I think the scope of the plants project would make adding banners a bit over the top, if not a full-time pursuit :). KP, these are added to the talk pages of articles of concern to various wikiprojects, and are actually quite helpful if you're unaware that a project is around, and for allowing project members to use as a reference for watchlist building. For plants (let alone TOL) this would involve many thousands of articles.
We already can keep track of the articles covered by WP:PLANTS by just starting from Category:Plants and moving down through subcats. At least one of our descendant projects (Carnivourous plants) uses one ({{Carnivorous Plants}}) but if we started adding it to every talk page about a plant? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 22:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I forgot about categories--although I did actually put them in the last 2 or 3 articles I created. And it's not like I'm going to be the one volunteering to put the banners anywhere. Still, it is rather nicely done. I'll be sure to ask Badbilltucker to do the one for a project I'd like to get a group working on. KP Botany 00:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A few other problems - that doesn't look like a bee - more likely a wasp or a wasp mimic, and iirc, waterlilies are not bee pollinated. Guettarda 17:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit request

Can someone look over the Zoysia matrella article. I tried to include everything, basic article, categories, references all in one fell swoop, for once, even finding a not particularly good copyright free image, and even finally learning how to do the footnoted references. However, as many already know, my writing style is a bit heavy; and I couldn't find the Wikipedia reference on the style for how to do the references to distinguish between specific footnotes and a general reference. Also, I'm a bit lame in the grasses, so it wouldn't hurt to have a grass person look at it. Thanks. KP Botany 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've left some comment on the articles talk page Gnangarra 09:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added a note on the talk page too; will have a go at looking out some info some time - MPF 01:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, anyone who wants to change the dialect to Commonwealth English is welcome to. KP Botany 20:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does this belong?

Project paranormal has recently added a page for a cryptozoological plant called the Umdhlebi, which may or may not exist (probably the latter). How does this fit in with project plant (if at all) and what infobox should it have (if any)?

perfectblue 16:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Plenty of paranormal and cryptozoological articles (what's the general name for a plant or anmila cryptic species?) on Wikipedia. Only thing is, does it say it was found in a jungle? Zululand is not jungle territory. I don't know that it really fits in with plants, so much as with hoaxes and similar items, but I think the black infobox you created looks fine. KP Botany 20:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Plants_Archive12_0b21.html"