Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives for WP:PLANTS edit
2004-05 Archives
2006 Archives
2007 Archives
2008 Archives

Contents


[edit] Organisms Wiki - a wikia on Organisms

Organisms Wiki was recently started as a wikia to educate on all types of organisms and their biological counterparts. This wiki will aim to provide free, excellence-quality and concise articles dealing with organisms and habitats. Organisms Wiki is a wikia, and is also very small and new, which is why I would like to leave a note here that we appreciate any helpful contributions.

I have had people criticizing the sense of making a wiki on this topic when indeed Wikipedia covers just about anything related to organisms. Sure, this may be true - but a major advantage of having Organisms Wiki hosted at wikia is to cover the topics in broader depth. Thank you. Organisms Wiki

Paul Davey 07:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Identification help, please

Is this the right place to ask? I took some nice photos of plants in the Namadji National Park, Australian Capital Territory, but have no idea what the plants are. They seem pretty common. If someone can help identify them, I'll upload them to commons with the correct names.

  1. [1] Small yellow flowers, thick, solid green leaves, about 50-75cm high.
  2. [2] Small purple/pink flowers, tiny green leaves, about 20cm high.
  3. [3] A type of swordgrass?
  4. [4] White/cream trumpet shaped flowers on green stalks, about 20cm high.
  5. [5] Pale purple cup shaped flowers, 5 petals.
  6. [6] Orange-yellow flowers, growing singly on tiny stalks.
  7. [7] Purple, four petals.
  8. [8] At first I thought it was the same as #1 above, but now I'm not sure.

All suggestions/comments welcome. There are some other angles here. Thanks. Stevage 08:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Some IDs as per item numbers (not link numbers) above:
1. Daviesia mimosoides [9]
2. Tetratheca sp.[10]
4. Stackhousia monogyna [11]
5. Euphrasia sp. [12]
7. Viola sp. [13] --Melburnian 01:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The stubs are marching in

I had mentioned earlier that I would be making a lot of stubs to rectify "deadlinks" from Wikiversity and Wikibooks, so just a heads up that they're rolling in now.

I also noticed that a lot of these are linked from various "article wanted" lists, and thought folks might want to make use of the template I'm making these articles with: User:SBJ/ps. That template is specifically designed for transitioning from wikiversity pages, but a similar one could be made with more #switch fields... let me know if I can help make one. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Any chance that you could first generate a list of the articles to be created, in case some of them exist under other names already? --EncycloPetey 13:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really: using the template is actually more efficient than making a list. I do search for plants before making the stubs, of course, but even for the old "common named" articles that haven't been picked up by the NC-sweepers, there is almost always a redirect (and hence no "hidden redlink" on with wikiversity side). At least thus far the only search results have been from either the genus article (for a species), or one of the various "wanted article" lists (flora of x, wanted gardening articles, and so on). I more or less assume (or at least hope) that the people who watch those lists will see the new blue links and expand them in regards to native range, horticultural uses, etc. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Research trip

Hi, all. I'm planning a trip in the very near future up to the University of Michigan libraries. I've already created a pretty hefty list of articles to photocopy for myself - journals I couldn't find elsewhere and where interlibrary loan had let me down. The library is quite extensive, so chances are they have what you might be looking for. (How many US institutions have all the volumes of the Australian journal Austrobaileya?) I'll take requests for your hard-to-find articles. Search their library here for the journal you seek. If they have it, check their holdings to see if they have the volume you need. Post the citation on my talk page and I will photocopy, then scan and deliver your article in pdf form. I thought I'd make the most of this trip and help out anyone here at the same time. I'll probably make the trip early next week, so make your requests! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've received one request so far. I'll probably be making the trip this coming Monday, November 12. Requests aren't limited to journals or WP:PLANTS-related material. Old monographs (they have a lot of F.Muell. material, among many others) and books are welcome as well. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poster presentation of WP:Plants at ATBC Asian Chapter

Hi All, I’m off to a conference (Association of Tropical Biology and Conservation – Asian Chapter) in Kuching, Sarawak in April 2008 and was wondering if you want me to promote the WikiProject:Plants there – thru a poster presentation. In general the pages covering tropical plants/ecology are fairly bare (with the exception of the Durian page) and could do with the input of a few more tropical biologist. I'm in the process of writing/editing Stubs for various Dipterocarps - but with something like 3000 tree spp. in Sabah alone - there is a fair amount of work to do. Sepilok2007 03:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I could see promoting it as a location for collecting published data on species, provided you emphasize the principle of No Original Research. I've found that sometimes the important tropical taxa literature is hard to find or acquire, so having a place where the information is summarized and cited could be a great way to communicate internationally. --EncycloPetey 06:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you would have to worry too much about the biologist publishing their results on Wikipedia (RE:No Original Research). Our funding is dependent on getting our results into peer-reviewed journals with the highest impact factor - Wikipedia could be sold to them as a way of disseminating already published research to the wider comunitiy. I'm new to WP:Plants - so would appreciate feedback/help on the poster idea. Sepilok2007 07:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is great to get experts contributing, or at least aware of how things work around here (see, for example, Wikipedia:Expert editors/New draft for an essay on the subject). As for wikipedia as a way of disseminating their own research, I'd tread carefully and look at WP:COI. But as for wikipedia as a way of informing the public about a subject area where the masses are unaware or misinformed - I could see interest there (needing to work within wikipedia policies and dealing with other editors could be a turnoff for some, but writing for wikipedia helps a lot with the problem of writing something brilliant and having no one read it). So yes, I could see value in a poster (and do ask if you have more questions about what to put on it or how to answer anticipated questions). Kingdon 15:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The best posters I've seen at meetings have a theme, and by that I don't simply mean they're on a sungle subject. So, WP:PLANTS is the subject, what's the theme? What overall impression or message do you want to convey about WP:PLANTS. Secondly, posters with effective and lasting impact tend to have 3 to 5 panels or sections on the poster. Each section then has (a) a clear, concise summary statement, (b) an eye-catching photo/diagram relevant to the section, and (c) further text in each section that continues the idea started by the summary statement and photo.
I've been giving the idea some thought myself because there will be a major bryological meeting this summer within relatively easy driving distance for me. One theme panel I've considered for such a poster is the accumulation of wdiely-scattered distribution information on rare taxa. For example, so far as I know, Wikipedia is the only available source with a complete (if a bit crude) distribution map for Monosolenium tenerum. While there are databases that collect such information, none of them that I know of are open to direct editing from contributors. --EncycloPetey 15:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Other selling points could include: 1) articles link from taxa to author bios, and from there to institutions - puts things in context, and is a handy cross-check on, for instance, when botanist X was actually in the tropics on a collecting expedition, and 2) the image collection now has pics of multiple specimens for many taxa, so you can compare wild ones with those seen in various botanical gardens, get a sense of variation. A good theme would be that WP integrates botanical detail into general knowledge, stops the slide of botany into a ultra-specialized area known to only a few. Stan 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I think there are a few points worth covering. Conservation/taxa information: For many tropical plant species we have broad scale distribution maps - based on Herbarium collections (and my plan for the Dipterocarp pages is to upload these distribution maps), however, these maps show distributon prior to mans influence. The conservation of many tropical species is primarily dependent on the retention of protected areas and as part of my species description I'm linking to the relavent Wiki protected areas pages (or external pages - such as (Sabah Forestry Department: Conservation Area Information and Monitoring System). I think this is one of the advantages of Wikipedia - you can link diverse "databases". And the information isn't static - i.e. if a protected areas is lost (fire, encroachment etc.), which happens occassionally, then this information can easily be updated on the species page.

Dissemination of information: One of the advantages of Wikipedia is that it is accessible to anyone with a phoneline and a computer. In the tropics many schools/institutes of higher education don't have the library resources of their Western counterparts, however, computers and internet access are becoming more widespread. This will place a greater importance on information on the internet and how to access it. I doubt many schools and few institutes of higher education in the tropical subscribe to Web of Science or online Jounals - so Wikipedia could potentially be their main access to information - especially with the various versions of Wikipedia becoming available - in most internet searchs I do Wikipedia is listed in the first 10 articles. Sepilok2007 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Expanding on the diverse database idea, integrating diverse areas of knowledge is something wikipedia does well (or can do well). For example, history (for example, aneda linking a famous expedition and the plant which saved them from scurvy), medicine (for example, urushiol-induced contact dermatitis among many other examples), heraldry (many examples including Thistle or Pride of Barbados). Any botanical work can mention such subjects, but wikipedia is much more able to just link over to an article like Order of the Thistle which (on a good day) gets contributions from experts in that field, rather than just what a botanist thinks the situation is in history, heraldry, etc. Kingdon 15:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Another way to contribute is with properly identified photos. Many plant articles lack photos and one reason is that someone needs to identify the plant. Plant biologists might be able to contribute photos of plants which they've identified, or if they're passing through an arboretum simply by photographing plants which others have labeled. Proper licensing, yada yada yada. (SEWilco 16:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Spellcheck

Fraxinus mandschurica [14] or Fraxinus mandshurica [15]? Does anyone have access to the original publication to check, please?: Ruprecht, Bull. Phys. Math. Acad. Sci. Saint Petersburg. 15: 371 (1857). Thanks - MPF 11:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

IPNI has mandshurica. The same spelling was used for Tilia mandshurica in the same publication. Lavateraguy 16:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Mabberley's Plant Book has mandschurica. --EncycloPetey 04:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On the electronic plant information centre[16] at Kew - it is listed mainly as "Fraxinus mandshurica. The serach results were:

Plant names 2 entries found in IPNI

Bibliographies 22 references found in Micromorphology bibliography

Collections 3 specimens found in Economic Botany collection 14 specimens found in Living collection

with only 2 records in Economic Botany collection for the alternative sch spelling I haven't followed up any of the alternative search site listed on ePIC i.e. ITIS | RBGE | Species 2000 | w3Tropicos | GBIF Sepilok2007 05:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

other botanic gardens/herbarium with the sh spelling are:

1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from The Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh 2 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from the Sir Harold Hillier Gardens and Arboretum 1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from the Royal Horticultural Society 1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from The Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University 1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from The New York Botanical Garden 2 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from Denver Botanic Gardens (also have 1 specimen wt sch spelling) 3 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from WCMC's Plant Conservation Bibliography 1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from Botanic Garden of the University of Copenhagen

There is a synonym for this species Fraxinus nigra subsp. mandschurica (Rupr.) S.S.Sun - which may have added to the confusion.

Sepilok2007 05:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all! Looks a little unresolved so far - the problem is that if there's an error in Index Kewensis (far from unknown), that would have been taken up by IPNI as it is based on IK. Lavateraguy's evidence is very strong, but not conclusive, but then again when someone with the high reputation that Mabberley has goes the other way . . . I'm left stuck! I fear this one will have to wait until someone can get a copy of Ruprecht's original. - MPF (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey, I just wanted to thank all of everyone on this wikiproject, all the biology data has really been a help with my Bio homework! Thanks! Wikilost 02:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPA Pronunciation for Scientific Names - Good or Bad?

I've recently noticed a lot of articles that I've contributed to having an IPA pronunciation added. I believe that this should not be done due to the fact that nearly everyone tends to pronounce scientific names differently, not only from country to country, but also within the English speaking world and within its individual countries. If we were to list them all, in some plants with longer names there would probably be well over 5 possibilities, which wouldn't be helpful to anyone. I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find where and what was decided. Anyone have an opinion? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember discussing IPA but we did discuss another aspect of pronunciation, which syllable is accented, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive12#Scientific name accents, which led to the creation of Syllable stress of Botanical Latin and a moderate amount of usage of the accute accent convention described there. It seems like IPA would be rather more problematic than accents. I'm skeptical of either, largely on the grounds of the difficulty of finding reliable sources, although I haven't seen articles which enter the ridiculous zone of edit warring over pronunciation, lists of zillions of alternate pronunciations, etc. Just a matter of time, I fear. Kingdon (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd favour not having them, but if we do, I reckon they should follow the best practice suggested by Stearn's Botanical Latin "How they are pronounced matters little provided they sound pleasant and are understood by all concerned. This is most likely to be attained by pronouncing them in accordance with the rules of classical Latin pronunciation." (p.53 in my 3rd ed., revised). - MPF (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that we should have pronunciations devised by Wikipedia editors based on their own interpretations of "rules", as this borders on WP:OR. However I have no particular objection to providing pronunciations of specific words referenced from reliable sources.--Melburnian (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See this discussion at the article for Ailanthus altissima- after I removed the IPA given and stated my concerns, the editor did cite OED for the IPA pronunciation. While what it claims as standard is the way that I would pronounce it, I know botanists who pronounce the first syllable differently and some who always pronounce a 'th' at a 't' (as in 'Neanderthal' - often pronounced like 'Neandertal'). I feel that any 'standard' is artificial, even if given by the OED, but I'd be interested to hear what you have to say, either here or on the above talk page. Thanks for the input so far. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 00:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I agree. We don't have IPA pronunciations for scientific names over on Wiktionary because of a number of the problems mentioned above (and more). I shouldn't think it would be helpful to try to have pronunciations for all the various genera and species. However, I would argue that having English pronunciations for names of divisions and classes is probably a good idea. These names, although universal, are pronounced differently in English than in other languages, and within English itself are more consistently pronounced the same way because of the high rank and correspondingly higher use. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I share your concerns, Djlayton4, but if someone is going to go to the effort of actually finding a dictionary which includes the word in question (many botanical names won't show up in dictionaries, although Ailanthus is evidently one which does, and not just in the OED), I would tend to let them have their pronunciation. At least, that's how I tend to approach such matters. I couldn't keep sane on wikipedia without a certain dose of "whatever". Kingdon (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The "th" in Neanderthal is pronounced as a "t" because the word is Germanic in origin. Standard German pronounces all "th" occurrences as "t." This same convention is not applicable to Ailanthus as this word is Latin-based, not German. There is a standard way of pronouncing Latin, and the IPA should follow that. Perhaps it is pronounced differently colloquially, but the standard Latin pronunciation should be given. GreenGorgon (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the input. I agree that it should stay after listening to all the comments I've received, but I suppose I just wish there was a standard to make matters easier. C'est la vie, I suppose. But at any rate, I think a good rule of thumb would be if a dictionary gives a pronunciation, we might as well use it. It can't hurt at any rate. Thanks again! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 07:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

On the good side : such an IPA-pronunciation gives the opportunity to non-native speakers to find out how the words sound like as spoken by native speakers (this is not always evident). JoJan (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Identification of a lily

Hi, I believe that the lily in this photo: Image:Bouquet of flowers apr07.jpg is that of the Easter Lily. Could someone please confirm? This shot of the stigma may be of use: Image:Large stigma.jpg Thanks, --Fir0002 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear to be a cultivar of Lilium longiflorum, also known as "Christmas Lily" in Australia. --Melburnian (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The Easter or Christmas lily is a common flower for cut arrangements. There are forms that can be raised from seed that will flower in less than 12 months from sowing, greatly reducing the cost of production. If stored in a cool location the cut flowering scapes can be preserved for a number of weeks. Hardyplants (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! --Fir0002 22:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walking Fern

Could someone more familiar with the subject please have a look at this article and make any required changes. It's a little confusing as there seems to be three names for this plant, and I can see this going back and forth as to what name to use. I'm very in the dark when it comes to plants, but as far as I can tell, the botanical name should be Asplenium rhizophyllum, and the way it is written now it reads like it's a synonym. If it's fine as it is, then hurrah, but it's a little confusing none-the-less. ARendedWinter 07:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The current name is Asplenium rhizophyllum L. (as it is in the FNA, e.g.). It was segregated into a separate genus Camptosorus, until it was discovered that this "species" was part of a six-way hybridization complex with two species of Asplenium. As a result, it has been returned to Asplenium. I have corrected the taxobox and set it up for synonyms. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's all gibberish to me! ARendedWinter 08:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it from sources like Weakly's Flora, there is also molecular phylogeny data, in addition to the hybridization complex, supporting the placement in Asplenium. As for gibberish, RendedWinter, what this means for the article, mainly, is that Asplenium rhizophyllum is the preferred name but Camptosorus rhizophyllus is the same plant. Incidentally, Weakly's Flora looks like a good source for lots of plants of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. Kingdon (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello all, Melburnian invited me here. There are two species called walking fern, and each of these species has two scientific names, depending on whether they are placed in the Camptosorus or Asplenium genus. For some reason, the article kept being changed to say there is only one species of walking fern. Will someone please fix it? - L. Adair

The solution is to have a separate article located at each species name, and use the Walking fern page as a disambiguation page. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) says that this article should be located at the scientific name, not the common name. I've gone ahead with those changes, so you can create an article for Asplenium sibiricum now. --EncycloPetey 23:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes agree with EP, the text of the disambiguation page could be as follows:

Walking Fern may refer to two species of fern in the genus Asplenium which are occasionally placed in a separate genus Camptosorus:

It may also refer to:

Why the scientific name? Encyclopædia Britannica uses the common name, when possible. In any case, could the disambiguation page say what the two have in common? We should at least make it say why they are called walking fern, I think. - L. Adair

Is the synonym for Camptosorus sibiricus Asplenium sibiricum or Asplenium ruprechtii? On Google, Camptosorus sibiricus+Asplenium sibiricum gives about 10x as many results as Camptosorus sibiricus+Asplenium ruprechtii, so I think it is Asplenium sibiricum, but I am unsure. - L. Adair

There have been numerous lengthy discussions in the past that have led to the current policy where scientific names are, in general, preferable to common names as article titles. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive6#Plant Naming Convention Proposal draft for one of the main discussions.
The synonym for Camptosorus sibiricus is Asplenium ruprechtii, as shown at this link. I have moved the article to the correct name--Melburnian 00:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Plants

I just discovered this portal. Looks like it was created earlier this month. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

yes i just created since i was a bit free. hey encycloPetey kindly check your talk page please. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Japanese citrus

There is a DRV discussion here related to the Japanese citrus category that may benefit from your input. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 20:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polygonaceae assistance

I've just created (stub) pages for all the genera of the Polygonaceae that I could find, and could use help in two ways:

  1. Could someone inclined to illustrate pages pop some nice images in? None of the new genus pages have illustrations, though I set up the taxobox with the parameter names. That way, you just have to track down an images, pop in the name and a caption.
  2. Does anyone know anything about the (supposed) genus Muconea? It's listed on the Polygonaceae page, but I can't find it in any reference. I was running along fine creating articles until I came to that one. All the other genera listed on the page turned up nice internet resources, but Muconea seems to pull up nothing but mirror sites for Wikipedia. Is this a real genus? I've pulled the genus out of the list to the family's talk page for now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice work; re: 2 - I think it's meant to be Mucronea.[17]--Melburnian (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. And by the way, we now have a Cat:Polygonaceae stubs if anyone wants to work on this family. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dichotomous key options

Sorry I often seem to use this project as a ref desk, but we're going to do a 'bot update on the wikiversity bloom clock, as well as making an extension of the keys to enable searching by and for families. I'm asking because it's better not to have the bot doing corrections, but rather reserve it for adding fields. We're talking about doing the following additions, and I want to make sure they're exhaustive options (e.g., I didn't discover the need for "opposing tendril" on leaf arrangement until I got into cucurbitae and vitaceae). Here's what were talking about right now:

1. Perianth number (options are 0, 3n, 4n, and 5n... are there plant families with other perianth numbers?
2. Flower position (axillary, terminal, terminal and axillary, basal)
3. Perianth lobes (fully fused, partially fused, distinct)
4. General inflorescence (solitary, paired, trios, flat-topped, rounded, elongated)
5. Botanical inflorescence (any option from the wikipedia article, Inflorescence)
6. Pith (solid, hollow, chambered)

I guess the question is whether these options will cover all the bases (we'll add more later). Did I miss anything? --SB_Johnny | talk 16:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've never looked at the project, but I'm assuming that there are existing fields already there. Is pubescence already in there? If not I would think that it would be a good character type to add (glabrous, hirsute, villous, stellate, glandular etc etc.). Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not yet :). I'm a bit concerned about those as categories in any case (when do you decide a leaf is pubescent, rather than hirsute or tomentose? I'm rather under the impression that certain distinctions botanists make are not "NPOV")... categories that any botanist, wildflower enthusiast, or gardener could agree on are what we're looking for here. --SB_Johnny | talk 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I see your point and you're right that different types of pubescences can be difficult to define, but I would at least include glabrous vs. hairy. I can think of a few plants where this is a distinguishing feature between two otherwise similar species. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if these topics are already covered, I have not had time to look over your current project. I have used a number of keys and some of the things that stand out as characters that have been used to segregate different families include: Green plants vrs parasitic plants, land plants vrs aquatic; Ovary position - inferior, superior etc; Glabrous vrs hairy; leave opposite, whorled ect; Petals free or absent or attached to each other; Woody plants, herbaceous plants, annuals biennials or perennials; Leaves entire, lobed, dissected ect. If these are helpful I can list others but maybe this is redundant info. Hardyplants (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The number of calyx segments is not always the same as the number of corolla segments, and if you count epicalyces as a perianth whorl that adds to the variation. The apetalous genus Octolobus has 8 sepals. The rosaceous species Dryas octapetala has 8 petals. Ranunculus ficaria has 7 to 12 petals, Troillus has 5-15 of both sepals and petals, Helleborus 5-12. Several other Ranunculaceae are apetalous but have high numbers of petaloid sepals - Caltha palustris 5-8, Anemone 5-20 depending on species, Hepatica 6-10, Pulsatilla 6, Many monocots have 6 tepals, but I'm not sure whether any can't be interpreted as two whorls of three.

In general core eudicots are stereotypically 4- or 5-merous, with exceptions such as Octolobus and D. octapetala, and monocots are stereotypically 3-merous. Basal angiosperms and basal eudicots are more varied, varying either in the number of whorls (e.g. in Magnoliaceae) or in the merosity (e.g. in Ranunculaceae). Paperaveraceae often have 2 sepals, and I seem to recall there's a clade somewhere with two petals. The number of bracteoles and sepals varies more.

You can get an overview of variation if you go through the relevant pages on the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. (Alternatively Judd et al or Heywood et al if you have access.) Lavateraguy (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There will alwas be some exceptions to any characters used in a key, thats why regianl keys are easer to construct than wordwide ones (cuts way back on the pool of exceptions) I wonder how many people are going to be interested in a family key - unless they can get down to a specific plant they want to know. Most non scientists are not concered why or how any plant ends up in a certian family, most I would image would relate to a genus, "its a rose" or "its a lily" ect. Hardyplants (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
But most regional keys pick up at the level of family. So a family key here would mean that the user may then refer to a local flora to get the rest of the way. In my opinion (from my earliest days) they keys that Floras use to identify the family are terrible, so an amateur ends up browsing for pictures rather than using the keys.
But in terms of your list above, I don't see things like "does / doesn't contain latex", "petals symmetric / spiralled", "sepals and petals distinct / identical", "stipules / no stipules", "flowers solitary / clustered", "stems round / square", "stems jointed / not jointed", and a whole range of other critical characters I would expect in a broad key. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I guess I need to clarify a couple things :). First, the actual keys so far are local (example here), but of course the same plants are appearing in multiple keys when they have been recorded from different regions (example). The dichotomous categories are actually wiki categories, that are picked up by DynamicPageList to create the visual browsing keys.
What I was asking about above is whether the options above are fairly exhaustive (apparently perianth number isn't), so for example, could a stem's pith be something other than hollow, solid, or chambered? It's better to define all the options from the start rather than later, to avoid overuse of the bots (all the categories are on a template, and the bot changes the variables on the template on all pages it's used on when it updates... currently almost 500 plants).
Definitely not intended to be exhaustive as yet. The goal is more to limit the number of plants on any visual key to a relatively low number (currently just aiming for below 20). More fields will be added later when we need them, because the templates are designed to be updatable with AWB.
It's really designed to avoid the problem EncycloPetey mentioned, so that someone with limited botanical knowledge can find a plant without sifting through the entire "book", which is why most of the categories are "plain english" so far. I'll try to get hold of the guy who wants to do the family keys to see how he wants them to work (I'm afraid I'm usually the guy paging through the book, though I do often figure out the family from general appearance). Since it's "not paper", we can design keys for both botanists and non-botanists using different combinations from the same data sets. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Another inflorescence position is oppositifoliate (the clade I know with this feature is the mostly Australian Lasiopetaleae). There are also plants with cauliflorous inflorescences (borne on the trunks, branches, etc), e.g. cacao. If I recall correctly there are internodal interflorescences as well.
There's a file somewhere on the web with a list of character states. Lavateraguy 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you happen to have the URL for that? It looks like it might be better to just "go with what's needed now", and then just modify the options when other traits come up (which is frustrating, but it seems that no amount of planning will be sufficient). --SB_Johnny | talk 12:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't have it to hand, but I've managed to find it again with Google - [18]. Note that even this is not complete. Lavateraguy 13:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah thanks! It's a start anyway. Perhaps the best option for the meantime with a lot of these things is just to have "other" as an option. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)