Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents


[edit] Genus: Acer

I think Acer (genus) may need an article. Acer is a disambiguation page, with about 8 articles about the genus Acer directed there. Unfortunatley there isn't an article about Acer (genus), should there be? --Commander Keane 04:20, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

The simplest solution is to either redirect Acer (genus) to maple or to move maple to acer (genus). I'd tend toward the first. Circeus 14:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quick overlook

Can someone have a look at Interrupted fern, Blue-bead lily and Golden clover for prose and vocabulary? Thanks in advance. Circeus 22:23, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Curtis Clark 00:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Same for Common Milkweed. Circeus 19:05, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

"Golden clover" done and moved to its usual name, Large Hop Trefoil. Point to make here: beware of the USDA plants database in particular, which is hopelessly bad at getting the common names of European plants completely wrong. So much so, that I'd recommend avoiding it completely when dealing with European, Asian, etc., species. And also when writing about European and Asian plants, their status as cultivated introductions in North America is a minor factoid to be placed low in the article, not taking precedence over their status as native plants in their homeland (see e.g. Large Hop Trefoil - my edits. When citing references and links for European plants, please look for British/European references, not American ones, which come with an American POV not suitable for non-American species. - MPF 00:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
While I appreciate your points about common names, and in this case I have no disagreement, I think it's important to remember that (1) introduced plants can be ecological dominants, under new names, in their adopted lands, and (2) there are plants (sorry, none come immediately to mind, unless you count Salsola pestifer) that are much more common and well-known in their adopted ranges than in their native lands. Both of these things are reasons that organisms should be listed by their scientific names. Unfortunately, that is not Wikipedia policy. --Curtis Clark 03:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Curtis - Agreed there are a few exceptional cases, but they are rare. I also agree that organisms (plants in particular) should really be under scientific names, I've moved plenty of plant pages to sci names myself for exactly that sort of reason (including Salsola) - there's been some discussion on this at the parent talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, there's a strong feeling there that where common names cause the slightest confusion, move to the scientific, but it is not a full consensus, unfortunately. - MPF 09:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I rarely can get actual european sources, at least for the time being. That is another of the reasons I want to have other people review what I write (I addition to language issues). Soon I'm entering Uni and should be able to get better material for these flora articles. I'll try to limit myself to native american plants in the meantime (like the other were, I only wrote Golden Clover because I happened to have a picture of the plant and it didn't already exist). Circeus 00:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Circeus - there's some available on the web (one option is to put the sci name in google advanced search and limit the search to .uk or .fr etc, domains); alternatively, drop me a query on my talk page. Hope you enjoy uni! - MPF 09:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Headers

Some of the pages I've seen (I presume following the Ragwort example) look awful, because they have far too many double-bold (==Header==) headers. It doesn't look good with every two- or three- line paragraph having a separate large underlined header. Please keep to three or fewer headers, unless the page is a very long one! (more than three or four full screen heights, e.g. apple). Some of the headers used are pretty frightful too, notably "Distribution and multiplication" and "Botanical properties" - they look really yucky in everyday English.

Thanks! - MPF 00:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a point I've been worried myself, and I am guilty of producing too much headers, though I'm trying to refrain from that. Maybe just "description" and "distribution" would be more than enough, with multiplication strategies handled in "ecological aspects"?. I'm not even sure "botanical properties" makes any actual sense. Feel free to edit the Plant species template. Circeus 13:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Will do, might add some suggestions in <!-- --> tags too; I'll hold fire for a day or two though in case others want to comment too - MPF 13:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I ended up changing the headers today. Might as well add a ful taxobox too instead of a link. Circeus 15:52, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Fungi

Could we create a WikiProject Fungi or WikiProject Mushroom? I haven't seen one, and I'm willing to participate. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I support such that idea. The best way to go around with it is create an empty wikiproject page (For an empty template look here, look up some people who have contributed to fungii on the english wiki and invite them. Oh, and please do add it to Wikipedia:List_of_WikiProjects. TeunSpaans 18:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd be willing to help out with this too. It looks like no action has been taken on this since the original request, but the Fungi need a whole lot of work. Is anyone else interested in a Fungi WikiProject? Mycota 22:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] as usual...

If someone could check at Broadleaf arrowhead. Circeus 15:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stub proposals

This seems a good place to mention that the Stub sorting project is proposing two new subcategory stubs to break up the 8 page monster listing under Cat:Plant stubs. Specifically, I've proposed {{succulent-stub}} and {{grass-stub}}. If you have an opinion in the matter, just post it on the Stub proposal page under the appropriate header. -- EncycloPetey 16:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hyphenated plant species names

This is a controversial topic. Is it poison-ivy or poison ivy, Osage-orange or Osage orange? I think we need a guideline on this. There is already discussion in Talk:Poison ivy and Talk:Toxicodendron#Hyphenation. The discussion should be gathered here.

The common usage is usually without hyphen. I looked up poison ivy, Douglas fir, Osage orange. They all are without hyphens in Merriam-Webster dictionary, Wordsmyth dictionary, WordNet dictionary, Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (it has only poison ivy entry, not the rest), and my English-Finnish dictionary, and are often clearly described as species, not some vague type of plant. Then I searched from several scientific databases.

ITIS:

  • Maclura pomifera: osage orange, osageorange, osage-orange
  • Pseudotsuga menziesii: douglas fir, Douglas-fir
  • Toxicodendron diversilobum: Pacific poison oak, pacific poisonoak
  • Toxicodendron radicans: eastern poison ivy, poison ivy, poisonivy

NCBI:

  • Maclura pomifera: Osage orange
  • Pseudotsuga menziesii: Douglas-fir
  • Toxicodendron diversilobum: western poison-oak
  • Toxicodendron radicans: eastern poison ivy

USDA/NRCS PLANTS:

  • Maclura pomifera: osage orange
  • Pseudotsuga menziesii: Douglas-fir
  • Toxicodendron diversilobum: Pacific poison oak
  • Toxicodendron radicans: eastern poison ivy

I also searched from Funet database, but I think that it is sketchy and not maintained, so I would exlude it from the comparison.

It seems that the scientific databases use most commonly forms without hyphens. An exception is Douglas-fir. However, these samples aren't enough to decide how some plants should be called in Wikipedia. I hope that you participate in this discussion, and give examples from books. Also, which is more important, common usage or usage in scientific works? –Hapsiainen 15:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

More sources

MPF would like to add [1] an online book by US Forest Service: Silvics of North America

  • Maclura pomifera: Osage-orange
  • Pseudotsuga menziesii: Douglas-fir

So I add these:

Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants:

  • Maclura pomifera: Osage orange; hedge apple
  • Toxicodendron radicans: eastern poison ivy

Horticopia (for green industry)

  • Maclura pomifera: Osage Orange
  • Pseudotsuga menziesii: Douglas Fir
  • Toxicodendron diversilobum: Western Poison Oak
  • Toxicodendron radicans: Poison Ivy

–Hapsiainen 00:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the rationale is that poison ivy isn't ivy, an Osage orange isn't an orange, and Douglas fir isn't a fir. I agree there should be consistency. I think the hyphenated forms have become deprecated in recent years in favor of the non-hyphenated, but I'd be happy to go either way. --Curtis Clark 19:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Requested move, see Talk:Poison_ivy (I think it should stay as Poison-ivy (plant), really... It's *not* a type of ivy after all and it helps differentiate. --Chaosfeary 10:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the question, how often the spelling "poison-ivy" is used. -Hapsiainen 20:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The original forms of all these names are unhyphenated. The hyphenated forms are an attempt by a few academics to impose their perception of order on the English language. Clearly Poison Ivy is not an ivy, but the way it is used in real life English is without the hyphen. I am a biologist (and am more likely to refer to many plants by the genus than by the common name), but I prefer common names to be left alone as much as possible. WormRunner 06:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It should also be noted that "German ivy" and "woodland ivy" are also not ivys, but are not usually hyphenated. Another example is "bigcone spruce", the other member of Pseudotsuga along with Douglas fir: It is not a spruce and is ordinarily not hyphenated. --Curtis Clark 15:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: move it to its scientific name. This avoids problems over hyphenation and capitalisation. - MPF 00:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur, but it seems not to be pattern and practice in Wikipedia. I suppose we could change that.--Curtis Clark 00:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I've proposed before that all plants should be moved to sci names (it's in the WP:TOL talk archives) - usually what's happened is that most of the people who actually work on plant articles agree with the idea (the no-sayers have generally been people with few or no plant article edits in their contribs), but nothing much ever gets done. Maybe it is time to get it done more fully - some time ago I got all of the non-Pinaceae conifers (except for Sequoiadendron) onto sci names as a test example, and it has worked very well. - MPF 00:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Some species can have several scientific names, while the taxonomists disagree which is the correct one. So we would still have disagreements about the correct title. Also, using scientific names in article titles is clearly against the Wikipedia naming conventions. "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." I have edited many animal articles, and I don't understand, how the situation with plant names would be so different. -Hapsiainen 00:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
It has been my experience that common names for animals are far less confusing than the situation for plant common names. As an extreme example, in eastern Arkansas the common name "sugar maple" is applied both to Acer saccharum (a maple) and Populus deltoides (a poplar). That second species, P. deltoides may be called "cottonwood", "poplar", "aspen", or any number of other seemingly unrelated names, even though it's a standard and common tree. By contrast, a rat is a rat, and a skink is a skink. --EncycloPetey 04:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The common names of vertebrates and showy insects such as butterflies are more stable than scientific names because, like scientific names, they are regulated (either de jure, such as birds by the AOU, or de facto, through common use in field guides), but unlike scientific names, the common names aren't subject to change when new information is found. Plants are a different matter; there are many more species, many of them either don't have common names, or have "made-up" common names, and there is more regional variation (or more precisely, regional variation is not suppressed as much as with animals). To me, the biggest irony is that every member of the two genera I study has a scientific name, but only one Encelia and three Eschscholzias have legitimate common names, so that when I write an article about each of them, the close relationship between "brittlebush" and Encelia palmeri won't be obvious from the article titles.--Curtis Clark 04:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd mostly agree with Curtis, except that common names can, and very frequently do, change. Look at an 18th or 19th century plant book, and a lot (often, most) of the names used will be different. I for one, would much rather follow an academic trying to make names more accurate, than be bound to the original spellings of the poorly-educated populist masses - the purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate, not to continue to promulgate historical errors of identification. If we are going to follow the anti-educational populist redneck supremacy that seems to be sweeping much of the world, we should also be taking on creationism rather than evolution: in this lies much of the logic in accepting names like 'poison oak' - if things are created individually, not evolved, they cannot have relationships, and a white oak is no more or less like a poison oak than it is a red oak. If we accept scientific understanding (as I believe we should), then we recognise that 'poison oak' is not an oak (Quercus) and so should not be called one, to educate and avoid confusion. - MPF 14:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Interesting take. I don't disagree, but I also think that standardizing common names is a way of asserting cultural hegemony, and using scientific names is a way of freeing common names from that hegemony. In the ethnobotany garden of BioTrek, we label the plants so that the largest and easiest-to-see name is the Tongva name (the label also includes the binomial and an English common name), because that is what we are about.
I had a conversation with an Estonian botanist on a taxonomy list. He had stated that in Estonia, common names for (macroscopic) plants and animals had been standardized, and that he saw nothing wrong with that. I asked him, "What if it had been the Russians who standardized them?" He immediately got the point. Control of the names of things is control of culture, and scientific names are a system independent (as much as possible) of that. Wikipedia should not be in the business of enforcing cultural hegemony.
And I'd suggest checking out Red deer as an example of how common names can go awry. It would be better IMO to have the article entitled Cervus elaphus, followed with something along the lines of "called 'red deer' in Eurasia and 'elk' or 'wapiti' in North America".--Curtis Clark 19:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Coming in late, but I am opposed to the hyphenation of "common" names like "poison-ivy" unless that is truly a common usage. This is a recent and rather tortured linguistic device that is making an attempt at precision but has little or no support in the real world. I don't even know any botanists who do this, although I don't doubt that there are a few out there. But the bottom line is that "Poison ivy", without a hyphen, is far and away the commonest form of the name you will find. Common names by their very nature often don't have any rhyme or reason (although in this case there's the excellent reason that outside the rarified world of systematic botany many vining plants are commonly known as "ivy" whether or not they belong to the genus Hedera; that's what makes them common or vernacular, and not botanical, names). MrDarwin 17:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I have had some disagreements with MPF regarding common names, but I agree wholeheartedly with MPF that plant articles should fall under the botanical ("scientific") name, with the various and sundry common names redirecting to that, rather than vice-versa. Common names (for plants, at least) are imprecise, confusing, misleading, and the "common" names of any particular species vary too much from one English-speaking country to the next. MrDarwin 03:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


OK, big sigh. This is wikipedia. It only takes one concerned editor a few secs to add the redirects of the hyphenated/non-hyphenated versions. And it really doesn't matter if ground ivy, boston ivy, or poison ivy aren't members of the genus Hedera. What matters is that a user (as opposed to an editor) can look up what they're trying to look up, and get to the article about the thing they're trying to look up. SB Johnny 23:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)