Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Verbascum thapsus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

[edit] Verbascum thapsus (Common Mullein)

previous FAC


The original nomination had little input, but I still feel that the article is amongst our best plant work, and would like to nominate it again. I have managed to find some extra material to add since the previous nomination, too, and fixed some other elements.Circeus 03:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Don't you think that the "Agricultural impacts and control" has way too many red links? Maybe you should fix them. - Hairchrm 04:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • As far as I know, for an article that length, it's not exactly an inordinate amount of redlinks, although I readily admit the way they cluster in that section makes it seem so. A couple of these I can probably stubify, but my forte is not entomology...Circeus 04:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I've removed 4 links the article could do without, which already looks somewhat better. I'll look in having a few of the others stubified.Circeus 04:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article needs a taxonomy section. Taxonomy section should:
    1. State that it was published by Carolus Linnaeus in his 1753 Species Plantarum.
    2. Specify type material; Linnaeus's type specification was simply Habitat in Europae..., but resumably someone has published a lectotype since then?
    3. Why "thapsus"? I had a quick look and found a reference suggesting that it might be after the Greek island.
    4. Is there no nomenclatural history to speak of? No taxa later declared synonyms of this species? No specimens initially ascribed to this species but later broken out into a separate species? IPNI suggests to me that there is at least some history there: I see entries for V. t. f. candicans, V. t. subsp. langei, V. t. subsp. litigiosum, V. t. subsp. martinezii and V. t. subsp. valentinum.
    5. The information on subspecies currently in the morphology section belongs in the taxonomy section. But who published the subspecies, when, and on the basis of what type specimens? Have they always had subspecific rank? Have any subspecies been published and later abandoned or promoted?
    6. Where is it placed within Verbascum? What are its closest relatives? Is there not an infrageneric classification of Verbascum in which this species may be placed? Maybe Benedi and Montserrat (1985) has something. Have there been any cladistic analyses of the genus, either morphological or molecular?
    7. The information on hybrids currently in the morphology section also belongs in the taxonomy section. IPNI makes mention that it is a parent of Verbascum x sybillinum, which isn't mentioned here.

Hesperian 12:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason it lacks a taxonomy/nomenclature section is my stupidity, because I didn't think of moving information about hybrids and subspecies there when I created the "Names" section (which was the latest to go up, with material that was in the intro)
  • 2) is covered under "names"
  • 4-5) I tried, oh how hard I tried to get taxo-nomenclatural background, but didn't uncover anything useful I could actually use. The best I have is a synonymized checklist with references.
  • 6) It seems the genus lack any monographic treatment I could find, and most cladistic studies I could find were at the family level. I can look into the Bendete and Montserrat (although Catalan is not exactly easy for me to decypher...), but my library doesn't have Collectanea botánica access. I'm not sure if I can get it via interlibrary loan.
  • 7) V. thapsus is a parent to at least a good dozen hybrids (which are listed under Flora Europae). For the most part, it didn't seem useful to list them all, although it can be done.
Circeus 15:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, there seems to be a monographic treatment, but it's from 1933 in German (or Swedish, I can,t tell)... Circeus 16:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I can get a few more refs and, with any luck, expand this section into a proper taxo-nomenclature section (and I just had a great idea for listing the hybrids too!). Any other suggestions? Circeus 18:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think failure to cite a Catalan or German or Swedish text should hold this back from achieving FA, so don't worry about that. But I do think it needs a taxonomy section, even if it is short. I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard to find out who published the three current subspecies, and when. I think when you said "2)", you meant "3)"? Regarding 2), the Linnaean Plant Name Typification Project can help you - a lectotype was specified in 1971 by Huber-Morath. There's also a nice photo of the lectotype, which I would contend is public domain in the U.S. per Bridgeman v Corel. I had a quick look for information on the systematics of the genus, but all I found was "Systematic consideration of microcharacters of fruits and seeds in the genus Verbascum", which doesn't seem to have gone far enough to be useful. :-( Hesperian 00:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not working on it right now because I need to look up stuff in books at my Uni's library, but will work on it tomorrow. I had actually tracked a few more stuff for synonymy and another lectotypification ([1]). Do you know what "Prop. Brit.Bot." is an abbreviation of? Maybe I can locate that (possible through JSTOR if it's a journal). Being French and having had 7 years of Spanish, I wouldn't be surprised if I could understand more of the Catalan article than you'd expect, but I'm unable to access it anyway. And thanks a heap for the link to the typification project! Circeus 01:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[2] Hesperian 01:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
*slaps forehead* How did I forget about IPNI? Circeus 01:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Support; my comments above have been addressed in draft form. Hesperian 00:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The statement that this species is "not an agricultural weed" which is mentioned three times in the article is contradicted by the information in the text and references that it is listed under the Colorado Noxious Weeds Act (Colorado Department of Agriculture), the "List of plant species designated as noxious weeds" (Hawaii Department of Agriculture), and is regionally controlled/prohibited by the Department of Primary Industries (Victoria).--Melburnian 04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
That is a very complicated thing to address. Basically, most reference to it as an agricultural weeds refer to overgrazed pasture, and it's not aggressive enough to represent a problem in any other type of culture. When it is designated as a weed, it is for concern about natural ecosystems (in Hawaii and California, dry mountainlands, for example). The "contradiction" is only apparent. Circeus 16:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If it's a weed on overgrazed pasture, it is an agricultural weed in that particular situation, by using the phrase "not an agricultural weed" (x3) it excludes that it is a problem in any agricultural situation (albeit one which can be overcome with better land management practices). --Melburnian 00:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Some syntax issues need cleaning up:
2nd para - Its small, yellow flowers - I'd write The small yellow flowers as it sounds less ambiguous and removes an unnecessary comma.
Common Mullein is a weedy, but rarely invasive species is an odd sentence with two seemingly contrasting meanings. What is meant by weedy here? I guess it is adaptable and a coloniser of broken ground but so far has little invasive potential (?). Extremely difficult to rule out invasive potential as many weeds are sleepers. Maybe replace with something like - ...is adaptable and a coloniser with invasive potential..(?)
While it is not very competitive, and thus not a problem for most cultures, it hosts many insects, such as the tarnished plant bug, that can be harmful to other plants - ungainly sentence - why not Though not competitive per se, it may host many insects which may be harmful to other plants.
  • Changed already.Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
stem-less - stemless ?
  • No idea as to the proper spelling. changed.Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

:In Morphology section - sentence 1 - "only" is redundant. Sentence 2 - dm (?) should be cm (?)

*Second sentence (and all instances of "dm") was added by User:Hardyplants yesterday. Seems t be fixed now.Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

: In Taxonomy and nomenclature section - this clause ..., which has long been known,.. is redundant and makes the sentence unwieldy. Optionally, you could preface the section with' The Common mullein has been known since antiquity or something similar.

  • I actually wanted to refer to the name, but I guess I should drop that reference altogether. It's better covered in "uses" anyway. Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

:Over the years, the species has accumulated a complex set of synonyms. - do you mean a large number only? In which case maybe just say 'alot' rather than a 'complex set'

  • changed.Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

More to come. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In the Life cycle subsection, I'd begin the first sentence The Common mullein..... Also produce less seeds should be produce fewer seeds
Well blow me down...interesting...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
In the Medical uses subsection, I think ..Common Mullein (especially the flowers) contains... can be expressed better; maybe just ..the flowers of the Common Mullein... It is tricky but I don't like the parentheses, even commas I think'd be better here.
  • Added a line after: "These compounds are concentrated in the flowers." Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Good thinking. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be nitpicky as I feel the article fulfils all other criteria. These are all readily fixable and I'll happily support once addressed. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I know nitpicky: I'm usually the nitpicky one, and It's nice to get the same treatment .Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
OK then, Support. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm so super close to supporting that I'm going to, but I have just some tiny niggles.
In ecological aspects The species is considered a noxious weed in Colorado (Class C),[41] Hawaii[42] and Victoria, Australia (regionally prohibited in the West Gippsland region, and regionally controlled in several others).[43] feels like it belongs in Agricultural impacts and control.
Agricultural impacts and control has multiple short paragraphs, can some of these be merged? Useful insects are also hosted by Common Mullein.... and The plant's ability to host both pests and beneficials makes... look like they could.
The others are European.[20] in subspecies, can this be added to the last senetence?
The seeds contain several compounds (saponins, glycosides, coumarin, rotenone) that cause breathing problems in fish, and have been widely used for fishing.[1][65] An explanation of how respiratory difficulties aids fishing would be helpful, I'm somewhat at a loss. Is an asthmatic fish easier to pull in?
  • None of these bother me enough not to support, but I'd like to see them at least addressed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I chose to place them under ecology because these have more to do with the species being considered an ecological threat than an agricultural weed.
  • Funny you should say that. It was User:AshLin that split that paragraph lol. I've undone it.
  • Done. That wording was infelicitous anyway.
  • They basically act as suffocative poisons. I added a mention of piscicide there.
Thanks for the comments!Circeus 23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I chose to place them under ecology because these have more to do with the species being considered an ecological threat than an agricultural weed. Perhaps that point could be made in the text. Otherwise, excellent work! Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not familiar with how the FA reviews work, and I just happened on this article, to which I made two tiny improvements. At first I thought the article looked like a railway timetable, since it was so dense with information, but after I had fun pursuing several trails, I realize it's a useful article. There are three areas where my curiosity was not satisfied:
  1. Is there a wider taxonomy somewhere in Wikipedia where you can see all the cousins and aunts of this plant?
  2. There is a 'Mexican mullein' that it is sometimes confused with, Gnaphalium spp.. Are there any theories as to whether the Mexican plant also came from Europe, or is there any other idea about a common origin?
  3. A cited article (ref. 68, last item in the reference list) mentions that some settlers cultivated the plant 'in dooryards' for use as a piscicide. If so, does anyone still cultivate the plant? I mention this because the whole article reads like an entry in the farmer's almanac, and is very practically oriented. There is a lot of mention of the chemicals you can extract from it; it would be interesting to know if anyone grows mulllein deliberately to harvest anything useful from it. I don't want to send anyone off on a week's worth of research; I was hoping that whoever created the article might already know this. If not, I'm certainly happy to have it become a featured article as is. EdJohnston 00:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. I am afraid not, but if something is to be created, it will be at Verbascum (closest species) and Scrophulariaceae (related genera). I intend to write on the closest species with the help of User:Djlayton4 when he gets his hand on an elusive reference.
  2. The species is native, and the transfer of Gordolobo to it is due to similar medicinal uses. They are otherwise completely unrelated.
  3. Mullein is still grown deliberately, but this occurs only rarely (I'd assume mostly for herbal uses) AFAIK. Related species, such as V. blattaria and V. olympicum, are more commonly grown as ornamental plants, though. Circeus 00:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.