Talk:Toxicodendron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Toxicodendron 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.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] archaic classification

Division of species as to whether they benefit or harm Man (Rhus vs Toxicodendron) has a long history in Antiquity and medieval lore, which predates Botany. This is an interesting vestige from the history of ideas that should be mentioned, if the false division is still to be insisted upon here in Wikipedia. --Wetman 11:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hyphenation

Why on earth are all of these names hyphenated? WP is the only place I've seen this done and I suspect it's just a holdover from very early drafts. I'd like to move all the hyphenated articles to unhyphenated (e.g., "poison ivy", "western poison oak") unless someone has a really good reason why not. Nearly all refs to assorted pages are via redirects from the unhyphenated versions (e.g., see Poison-ivy (plant) What links here), which further demonstrates that the hyphenated version is incorrect. Elf | Talk 16:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had left a message about this at User talk:MPF, in case he or she didn't have the article (or its talk page) on a watch list. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; am also leaving msgs on individual articles referring to here. Elf | Talk 17:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am fixing things but am stuck on Poison Ivy at the moment; technical difficulties mean I can't delete/move Poison-ivy there yet. But I'm changing hyphenation meanwhile. Elf | Talk 02:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Elf, I just added another comment at Talk:Poison-ivy (plant). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is done to show they are not species of Quercus and Hedera, respectively. It is quite a common practice in botanical works. - MPF 10:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But it's not *commonly* done. I did indeed find one book among my few that talk about poison oak or ivy (as a weed mostly) that hyphenates it, but the others don't. In the biology classes I took, they weren't hyphenated. Neither Webster's nor Encyclopedia Britannica hyphenate. The other counter-example you gave, ; the first three books I checked just to be sure I wasn't imagining things--Western Garden Book, the American Horticultural Society Encyclopedia of Garden Plants, and Northern California Gardening--not a hyphen to be seen. These have always looked misspelled to me here in Wikipedia and they still do. I don't think that anyone searching for them will spell them with a hyphen and--as I pointed out--no one referring to them outside of these three articles uses the hyphenated form. Elf | Talk 15:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the hyphens are unnecessary and would add Hortus Third to the list of widely respected references that do not use hyphens. Perhaps we need some kind of consensus on the Tree of Life page? WormRunner | Talk 16:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's certainly not true about "douglas-fir is also never hyphenated", that is the standard orthography with both the USDA and the US Forest Service. It is all about avoiding confusion; I don't think we should be promoting botanical error and confusion in wikipedia. Or do you have some botanical evidence for its classification as Quercus diversilobum (Torr. & A.Gray) Elf? - MPF 17:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sure, I ran out into my back yard and did my own DNA analysis. :-) No, really, I'm not arguing that the scientific names are incorrect. But I am thinking that common names are inherently not scientific names and trying to make them act like scientific names against common usage could possibly be more confusing. Elf | Talk 18:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I can see the point you're making there in "common names are inherently not scientific names and trying to make them act like scientific names against common usage could possibly be more confusing", but would disagree in the validity of that analysis - I know of all to many examples from forums and discussion groups etc that using ambiguous vernacular names is far more confusing than getting the vernacular names to match the scientific. While some may think 'Poison-oak' looks odd, I don't think anyone would have trouble understanding that it is the same as what they've always preferred to call 'Poison Oak', whereas the converse cannot be taken for granted at all, there will certainly be people who think that 'poison oak' refers to a Quercus that happens to be poisonous. This is particularly likely in an international situation like wikipedia with many readers with no knowledge of Toxicodendron at all. The sad fact is that most people don't know or use scientific names; and the natural human trend is to treat vernacular names in the same manner as scientific names "X Oak and Y Oak are both called 'oak', therefore they are related". - MPF 19:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid that someone who'd be confused into thinking that something referred to as an "oak" is an oak isn't going to be set straight by the existence of a hyphen. Of course I understand that I'm apparently arguing against some larger set of botanists who do use this convention. Still, as a technical writer who works with assorted experts on a regular basis, I know that they are not always right about the best way to communicate info. I, of course, am. ;-) (Wait--I know that's going to come back to haunt me--) OK, I'm going to go away now because I hate looking at something that looks misspelled and I'm going back to the Dog breeds project. You're welcome to come over there and point out that we have weird conventions for dog-related language any time--where people are often confused into thinking that something that's called a terrier is a terrier when in fact sometimes is isn't-- The horror! Elf | Talk 20:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] no poison ivy in California; poison ivy not that common elsewhere

I've lived in California for 31 years of my life, Connecticut for 6, and Chicago for 2. This article really looks to me like it was written by an Easterner. It implies that poison ivy is common in California, but I've never seen poison ivy in California in my life. It also makes it sound like poison ivy is common east of the Rockies, but if so, then "common" has to be interpreted completely differently than you'd interpret it if it was referring to poison oak in California. Basically all wild land in California is has poison oak. You can't go anywhere without encountering it. OTOH, I've never seen poison ivy in my life, anywhere in the U.S. I'm going to do some edits to try to make this a little more realistic.--Bcrowell 03:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I grew up in both CA and NY. I'd agree with you about poison ivy in CA, but at least in midstate New York it's just like poison oak is here--springs up everywhere. I can't speak for other parts of the country. Elf | Talk 01:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm a botanist in California for twenty years. I grew up in Ohio. I am quite familiar with both species. Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) is unknown in California. Western poison oak (Rhus diversilobum) is unknown in Ohio. Atlantic poison oak (Toxicodendron pubescens) is found in the eastern US (though not in Ohio or Pennsylvania), but it's not the same species as the one out here. Cryptoid 23:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

Nay I don't think people looking for an article on poison oak are going to want an article on the Toxicodendron genus. I think the current disambiguation page is the best bet. --Calibas 02:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nay Skip the merger, pointless. KP Botany 04:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nay It would just make the article longer and harder to navigate. I'm generally against article mergers Charlesblack 16:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite for including these species in Rhus

There was recently added a claim that the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website classifies these plants in Rhus, but I found no such thing on that web site. All they say on the subject (that I was able to find) is "For the limits of Rhus, which seem best narrowly drawn (i.e., restricted to ca 35 species in the genus), see Yi et al. (2006, and references)" at [1]. The Yi article isn't online, so I can't easily check exactly what they say, but "narrowly drawn" would, I suppose, exclude Toxicodendron. An older article from Yi seems to also say in the abstract that he does not include Toxicodendron in Rhus (although it would be nice to double-check this in the article itself). Did I miss something on the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website? Kingdon (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I found it in this way:
There is in the list: Toxicodendron Mill. = Rhus L., and Toxidodendron is not bolded. However, I see only now in the bottom of this page that the list of genera is compiled from databases of the Kew Gardens, which are not up to date. I found also a bit different version of the phrase you found: "For the limits of Rhus, which seem best narrowly drawn, i.e., there are ca 35 species in the genus, excluding Toxicodendron, etc., not some 200 species, see Yi et al. (2006, and references)." So, actually the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website supports exclusion of Toxicodendron from Rhus. Thanks for your attention! I undo my edit. By the way, Rhus should be edited. Some of the Toxicodendron species appear there, some not. Krasanen (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that and re-researching it. Given the large number of (possibly old) sources which list them in Rhus, I don't think those species should be removed entirely from Rhus. But I'm not sure about the best organization, with the two most obvious choices being: (a) move them to a new section "Species moved to Toxicodendron" (or some such wording), a la Polygonum), or (b) keep them listed geographically. In either case, we'd include both names (I see little choice in cases like this, where both names are quite widely used). Kingdon (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are right that it is better to include both names. I would prefer (a) but I think then this should be done also for the other new genera (Actinocheita, Baronia, Cotinus, Malosma, and Searsia, according the Rhus article), and the name of the new section would be "Species moved to other genera". I think this would be the ideal solution, then a reader would see at first glance all the (about 35) Rhus species, but the question is, if any editor finds information enough. For example, Baronia doesn't appear in taxonomy databases (the butterfly genus Baronia does). If there is NOT information enough about all the new genera, I would prefer (b), which is also easier to do. And maybe the missing Toxicodendron species should be added as well. Krasanen (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)