Talk:List of Rosa species

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	List of Rosa species is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
List	This article has been rated as List-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

I've put some work into a more complete list of Rose species. This list shows (where I know) the subgenus and section for the species. It also lists synonyms and common names where I know them. Although this list is more complete than the one on the main Rose page, it's still not as complete as it might be - I'm still working on it. Additions are welcome (of course, that's the whole point of wikipedia). Since it's such a big change, I thought I'd put it on a separate page for now with a link from the Rose page. Question: Should it stay on a separate page (with the existing list removed) since it's gotten long or should I replace the existing list with this text? Henryhartley 18:25, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can add, tho' I don't always have access to info on their subgeneric and sectional allocation. When all the species are allocated, perhaps the whole list could be listed taxonomically rather than alphabetically. A few points: (1) "Rosa banksiae normalis" - in botany, an indication of the rank of the infraspecific taxon must be given; I'm assuming variety, but if it is a subspecies, please change it; (2) I'm separating hybrids off to a discrete paragraph at the end. A lot of hybrids are inter-sectional and can't be allocated to a particular section. (3) the subgeneric and sectional names should be italicised (all ranks below genus are) - MPF 21:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1) As regards R. banksiae normalis, quoting from The Rose, An Illustrated History by Peter Harkness, Copyright 2003, "Contention of a different kind has surrounded R. banksiae normalis [Banksiae], in both its naming and the story of its origin. In the usual course of events it should have been called just R. banksiae because it appears to be a true Chinese species. In fact, another rose derived from it, with more petals, had been discovered several years earlier and named R. banksiae. The name of that rose was then altered to R. banksiae banksiae (though it is generally known as R. banksiae alba-plena), and its ancestor became R. banksiae normalis, the word normalis indicating it is a prototype." While most roses are named "correctly" following standard practice, there are a few, like this, widely considered to be species whose specific names are not single words. Based on this, I've added the normalis back to the name.

Harkness is in breach of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) here. The prototype is by definition R. banksiae var. banksiae; names like "normalis", "spontanea", etc., are illegitimate under the code if used in this manner. That a species was originally described from a cultivar of the species does not affect the name; a cultivar has no botanical status and is botanically a synonym of the species, and therefore it is incorrect to give a separate botanical name to the wild plant from which the cultivar was developed. Harkness may be an expert on roses, but this doesn't make him an expert on plant nomenclature. He further demonstrates his severe ignorance of botanical norms by failing to indicate the rank of the taxa (subspecies, varietas, forma, etc.). Sadly, a fault all too common among horticulturalists who have had no botanical training. - MPF 22:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2) One advantage in a single alphabetical list that includes important hybrids (the old ones that were once considered species) is that it's much easier to find a particular rose this way. Grouping them by subgenus and section makes finding a rose harder since relatively few people know about these groupings. I'd "vote" for a single list of species, synonyms, and R. x <whatever>. If someone wanted to start a list of all rose varieties I'd agree that should be a separate list on a separate page. In terms of this page, I think the two existing sections (Subgenera and sections and species) are adequate. I would think, however, it is appropriate to add a sentence or paragraph about each species on this page. These would describe form, flower color, place of origin, importance to rose breednig and history, etc.

I can see your point here, though it should also be made clear what is what. Options would be to use bold italic for accepted species, indent the synonyms or use a different text colour or something.

3) On your point (3), Peter Harkness does not italicize the subgenera names in his book so I'm not sure how universally followed that practice is. I got my list of four subgenera and the ten sections under Eurosa from that book. Is the use of Rosa instead of Eurosa a more recent practice (and Harkness is out of date) or an older practice still sometimes used? Henryhartley 19:41, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Again, Harkness is wrong and showing his ignorance of botanical standards. And yes, he is (badly!) out of date; the ICBN stipulates that the name of any section of a genus which includes the type species of the genus must take the same name as the genus (called an autonym, 'automatic name'). Prefixes like 'Eu-' are expressly repudiated by the code (and have been for 20-30 years at least!). - MPF 22:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then I assume anywhere Cinnamomeae shows up in the list it should be changed to Rosa (e.g. for Rosa acicularis)? And the subgenera and sections should be italicized in the species list? I'm happy to do it, just don't want to do something that someone else will have to fix. In any case, I think this list is already significantly better than the list on the main Rose page. Should that list be trimmed to just the most important (for some definition of important)? Also, the link to this page probably doesn't need to say that the list is "under construction" since it is no more under construction than the rest of Wikipedia - which is to say it is. Henryhartley 21:08, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, to all points; my suggestion for 'important' would be those rose species that already have wiki pages of their own, plus maybe a couple more American species (the eight that currently have pages have a fairly good geographic spread except a bit short on American species; maybe R. virginiana as a typical eastern species, and R. stellata as a western species and for its botanical interest) (and then start pages for these!). Perhaps also R. persica and R. roxburghii. I'll have a go at starting some of these off if you like. - MPF 11:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving to standard name and putting in category with the other lists of this type. (The cat makes a useful resource to see what other people have done.) In general I think the main Rose article is most useful when it includes 5-10 of the "most important" species, the ones that people are most likely to be looking up, and then people can bounce to here to find the most comprehensive list online. At some point I'm going to succumb and make a parallel mega-list of cultivars, the online resources elsewhere are just terrible. But now I have to go transplant a Raphiolepis (hmm, need to create that I guess) to make room for bare roots that will be arriving any day now... Stan 22:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW, it's usual for list entries to only get about one line of descriptive material, basically enough for a couple key words/phrases. Otherwise it slows down scanning for a particular entry, because you can't see as much of the list at once, especially for people with small screens (and I have seen someone read WP on a PDA!). If you have as much as a paragraph on a species, it's time to give it its own article. Articles are also the better place to go into nomenclature disputes between growers and botanists :-), you have room for citations, etc. Stan 01:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)