Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents


[edit] Article title problem

I'd like to start an article on candy cap mushrooms, aka curry milkcaps. The problem is that Wikipedia convention is to use the scientific name as the article title, and there are three closely-related species – Lactarius camphoratus, L. fragilis, and L. rubidus – that all go by the same common names ("candy cap" or "curry milkcap"). Titling the article "Lactarius" won't do, since this is a genus with hundreds of species, most of which are not "candy caps". I'm not sure if there's a named section or stirps which stands as a collective name for all three species.

What to do? The three species are similar enough that they really should be treated under one article, but what to call the article? "Candy cap" violates the rule against using common names for non-agricultural plant and fungal species. "Lactarius camphoratus" (or one of the other two species names) excludes the other two species. I was thinking of "Lactarius camphoratus and allies", but I'm not sure how well that fits in with naming conventions.

Ideas? Peter G Werner 21:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Japanese wiki article says that Lactarius camphoratus is in "Sect. Russulares". bogdan 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
No idea. You could name it after one and redirect all the others to it. Someone more experienced needs to input here. KP Botany 22:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


I think using a common name is the most feasible option in this case, several fungi articles are known by common names already. Amanita phalloides is under Death cap and Destroying angel covers Amanita virosa and A. bisporiga.
I'd say fungi are a special case distinct from plants as there is a much higher percentage of species complexes and similar taxa which are indistinguishable without the use of a microscope, thus the use of a common name for a group of species. Furthermore, fungi aren't plants so as I am writing this I am musing on copying this to Wikiproject fungi and leaving it there as a rule to vote on. Wikiproject birds prefers common names to scientific names for article headings. cheers Cas Liber 22:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, do copy, maybe Wikiproject fungi already has a policy on common name usage. Although I never learned that fungi were plants, fungi have always been part of the botany curiculum and their names are under the botanical code, however, as this is Wikipedia, and there is a project for fungi, that would be the place for the best answer. KP Botany 22:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest Candy cap, with redirects from the three species names. If at some point any of the species warrants its own article, it can be substituted for the redirect.--Curtis Clark 22:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I started Wikiproject Fungi, but we have no specific naming policy. So I've just been following the naming policy used here. Titling the article "Candy cap" with redirects from the species names sounds like the best solution, and consistent with the way the Destroying angel species complex was treated. (On the other hand, Death cap only refers to Amanita phalloides, and I'm not sure if that article title shouldn't carry the scientific name.) As for using Lactarius sectional names, that's still too broad of a category. If the three species do make up a named taxon, its probably at the "stirps" or "series" level – I haven't had a chance to look that up yet. Peter G Werner 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You could always make a common name disambiguation page, something like this one I reorganized a while ago - including links to all the relevant species pages. Its probably a neater solution that writing an article about four or five things that all share a common name. --Peta 02:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I think you're missing the point. These three species are very similar and quite closely related, and with identical culinary uses. Three separate articles would be uncalled for. The precise taxonomic differences between the three could easily be worked into the article. Peter G Werner 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this is an example where you could make a good case for using the common name as the article title, then discussing the various species that go by that common name within the article, especially if they are similar in appearance and use and closely related, as you indicate. Most taxonomic articles are not at the point where each and every species in a genus merits its own detailed article (but I would suggest making sure that there is a link from the genus article). MrDarwin 14:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It's useful to discuss things before taking steps, as you have done, Peter. In this case, it seems you know enough about the species concerned to judge that a single article with the common name is the appropriate way to go. If there is future discussion about the choice of article title, just refer to this discussion. Thanks. I look forwarding to learning about these mushrooms with the cute name. KP Botany 20:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
There's now a discussion of article naming policy for fungi at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fungi#Fungal_article_headings. Peter G Werner 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer reviews requested

Here are a list of plant articles that have been pointed out to me that are in desperate need of work. I would appreciate some suggestions for how to go about it. I also would like some guidelines about the general format. What about SB Johnny's suggested template? Can anyone adopt a taxon? I'm researching Fabales, but it's rather large.

  • Betulaceae
  • Boraginaceae (No apomorphies/characteristics described)
  • Cannabaceae (This one is ridiculous!)
  • Crassulaceae (No gereral characteristics/apomorpies described)
  • Cucurbitaceae (Too short for such an economically important family)
  • Cyperaceae (No photos, no apomrphies... Nothing!)
  • Fabaceae (No description, we need a picture to describe the flower of Faboideae -I could take it if it wasn't winter!-; Papilionaceae redirects to Fabaceae, shouldn't it redirect to Faboidea?)
  • Fagaceae (No apomorphies)
  • Malvaceae (Edit war about taxonomy, needs to be rewritten, more about morphology)
  • Polygonaceae (No apomorphies described, no pictures)
  • Rosaceae (Much about taxonomy but no apomorphies/characteristics)
  • Rubiaceae
  • Salicaceae (Ok, it's always like that: no apomorphies, no general characteristics, no photos...)
  • Scrophulariaceae
  • Violaceae (is this an article or a stub?)
  • Urticaceae

KP Botany 19:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The first thing I'd like to see is mention of the one or two leading monographs for each family, so I can make up my Amazon shopping list. 1/2 :-) Then just summarize what they say. The problem I've always had with these is lack of source material - there are lots of people that mention Crassulaceae, say, but not so many that say what defines it. Anderson's The Cactus Family is an example of the perfect kind of source for WP, being both authoritative and accessible to nonspecialists, but I gather that most plant families are not similarly graced - or are they? Stan 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
This is one of the best things about group thinks, imo, when other people say things so obvious it should have been in my mind, but wasn't. Yes, all the family articles and genera articles, and if they have them, species articles, should list the major monographs. Many science articles should. Not just in references, but in the article text with a discussion putting them in the context of current research. Some of them are just so big, and some of them I don't know. For Geraniaceae there is a major set of 3 books on the Pelargonia, maybe with Geranium, I don't remember, that should be listed--it would be appropriate to mention in the family article, even if it is on the genus. Baldwin's (or whoever's) CNPS paper on Scrophulariaceae should be mentioned in that article. I don't know the others off-hand. I've added a section on just what the articles should include. KP Botany 19:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Note I forgot to add, many of these are being worked on by Aelwyn who speaks English as a second language, so please add some of them to your watch-lists as a courtesy and correct the English where necessary. It's understandable, although some awkward word choices. The botany is fine. KP Botany 21:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much KP Botany! I hope my clumsy English doesn't make my contributions more troublesome than useful! If so, please let me know. Enough information to make Angiosperm articles at least decent can be found on the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. I'm focusing on plant family articles at the moment, I'm going to work on the bold articles in the list. Aelwyn 13:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll see whether I have time to help out with some of these in the coming months. The biggest problem with writing a family article is that most people and most books are familiar only with the members of a family that grow in their country or region. The second biggest problem is the constantly shifting definition of what gets included in the group - you'll have a hard time getting a good Scrophulariaceae article because it's definition was never good; it's been realized that the old defition was not even remotely monophyletic, and the new version has very few good descriptions available. --EncycloPetey 15:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Scrophs? I know someone who works on Scrophs, and he doesn't seem to have a good definiton of what a Scroph is any more :) Guettarda 16:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that the Scrophs article is terrible might just be a reflection that the situation in the family is complex. Let's start with Olmstead's (not Baldwin's, and I always transpose their names) CNPS article[1] for the Scrophulariaceae and, unless an expert jumps up, just assume some serious group work and talk page discussions will have to be had? For this article, please post links to all of your sources on the talk page as you are working, rather than waiting to post as references if you use them. I do know someone who works on the monkey flowers (now Phrymaceae) and could ask her what she thinks we should use, if any particular resources. KP Botany 20:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The articles should include (not in any particular order)

1. Mention and context of one or two major monographs on the family.
2. Apomorphies that distinguish the plant family within its order and within angiosperms.
3. Description of habit, branching, phyllotaxy, leaf morphology, flower sex (perfect, imperfect, #houses), overall morphology, whorl descriptions, apomorphies of seed if applicable, fruit.

[edit] Lepidoptera mentions in articles

Discussion from Plant article:

Is it really appropriate for so many plant pages ( genus usually ) to have an account of the Lepidoptera that feed on it? No doubt this information is useful to someone studying butterflies and moths, and it is certainly relevant to include it under those butterfly and moth articles. I'm questioning whether it is of any interest for most plant articles to include the information that a particular species of moth, often with a wide range of food stuffs, has been known to feed on it? Imc 18:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Often a plant and a butterfly will have a co-evolutionary history. When this is the case, it is not appropriate to omit the butterfly from the plant's page, as the relationship between the two impacted and impacts the evolution of both plant and animal. An obvious example is the relationship between swallowtail butterflies and their pipevine host plants, which contain aristolochic acids that the swallowtails sequestor in their tissues to deter predation. The plants may have fewer herbivores because of a particular secondary metabolite that the herbivore has developed a tolerance mechanism for, and the herbivore may have less competition for the plant's food resources (as with certain insects that feed on members of the Brassicaceae) due to the presence of this chemical or molecule or system, and the herbivore may sequestor a toxic substance made by the plant that makes it unpalatable to predators. KP Botany 18:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I accept that it is appropriate to include a herbivore (or pollinator, et.c) when there is a relevant connection to a botany article. If a connection is known, then it should be stated, otherwise why include the animal? Of course, such connections could extend across to many more animals than butterflies and moths; e.g. grasses and a distant connection with herbivore mammals, hummingbirds and their flowers, et.c. BTW, the Aristolochia article has no mention of any butterflies, and the Brassica article connects only to a list of moths, with no mention even of the common Cabbage White butterflies. This is one of the reasons that I raise this; the inclusions I've seen are limited to the Lepidoptera only, and I'm not sure that it includes all of them. Imc 21:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're arguing here, that the article is incomplete? Lots on Wikipedia is. If the article is about a plant and it has no herbivorous pests, they should be included in the article. There's a lot of research done on lepidopterid pests as they do intensive crop damage and the research is funded by agricultural and government dollars, so these are common known, well-studied herbivores. In addition, Brassica is a major crop plant all over the world, so it is well-studied and its pests are intensely studied. I would argue that a moth is not listed just because it's known to feed on it, but rather because it lives in the same area and is known to be able to feed on it (not a given with Brassicaceae, not everything can eat 'em). I'm surprised the Cabbage White isn't listed, also, but I'll just add it. You can't assume it's purposefully not listed. If it's known to feed on it, it has been researched, and it's generally reportable, particularly with crops. Is there some particular article where you think it is superfluous information? KP Botany 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For an example of what I think is inappropriate in level of detail, look at Solanum. The information there is inappropriate at this level, since Solanum species are used as food plants by numerous animals, including many mammals, birds, and also many orders of insects, not just the Lepidoptera. That sentence, in its present isolation, implies that there is no other important grazer. It has nothing to say about evolutionary or other relationships, though of course these may be important. Imc 19:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please, the article itself is so dreadful that singling out one sentence as inappropriate is meaningless imo. Solanum is a major crop plant and is one of the genera, as I said above, that is well-studied for its herbivorous pests because of its value in agriculture--thus the mention of lepidoptera as pests will be a major focus of much research on the genus. Thank you, however, for bringing it to my attention, namely just how crappy this particular article is. I will post it on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants board to let folks need the article is in desperate need of attention. This is really more a function of it being a crummy article, then of this sentence being inappropriate, it simply has almost nothing to say about this hugely studied genus. I will start working on the article, and take this over there (to the talk wp plants board) also.KP Botany 20:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Obviously Solanum needs some serious work, also. It is probably better to start with the families, and I haven't looked at Solanaceae. I think that Imc makes a good point here. The mention of the lepidoptera pests stands out without context in this article, and possibly in others, but more because the article needs a lot of work, than because it is inappropriate to mention the herbivorous pests, and because there was no attempt to put the herbivory in contest, namely there are billions of butterfly species (as far as I can tell), and they do serious damage to crop plants, and have sneaky adaptations to doing that damage. I can add an older monographer later to the Solanaceae, is there anyone who can at least put this sentence in context over the next few days? Namely someone who already knows enough to update, I'd have to look up the pests a bit and am a bit slow in the reading/time department. KP Botany 20:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sycamine tree

Can something be done with the Sycamine tree article? (apparently it was mentioned in the Bible) --Montchav 14:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggestion

Another thing, could you make this page easie to find? Maybe put a link on top of Talk:Plant. --Montchav 14:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosopsida

I just wanted to bring this article to someone else's attention. I don't know enough about the taxonomy issues spoken about in this article and it appears this is one of the articles that Brya left behind full of POV (I've never seen an article self-reference to Wikipedia so much). Anyone care to help bring this article back under control? --Rkitko 08:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at it on my lunch hour. I agree it needs cleanup but it's not worth a whole lot of time as names at this rank are so unstable and not used at all in the APG II system. It's not POV so much as extremely awkward wording; Brya inserted variations on the phrase "Wikipedia has adopted the APG II system" into many Wikipedia articles; I've cleaned up such articles when I come across them, but there are many more still out there. MrDarwin 14:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I try to clean up as many as possible, found some by doing google searches, too. Still a lot out there that needs work. Thanks for the post, Rkitko. KP Botany 15:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, did the dirty deed. I removed a lot of information I felt was unnecessary, but also tried to make the article more informative by comparing "Rosopsida" to the classifications of Cronquist and APG II. MrDarwin 17:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. It looks much better! Now, I don't pretend to understand taxonomy much above the level of family, but it looks like other wikis like the German Wikipedia (Dreifurchenpollen-Zweikeimblättrige) and the commons (Category:Rosopsida) use this taxon quite frequently. The German Wikipedia interwiki links even link back to several other language wiki articles on the eudicots. Why the prevalent use elsewhere? The reason this came to my attention is the Triggerplant article that I'm constantly working on. The German version, Schusspflanzen, and its commons page, Stylidium, include Rosopsida as the class, whereas I found the current en.wiki article taxonomy classification on several websites (mostly academic projects). Well, hell, let's just say I'm stumped and any input would be appreciated. --Rkitko 18:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I took a quick look and it seems they are emphasizing a classification system by Ehrendorfer, a German botanist whose system has apparently not been widely discussed or adopted outside of Germany--I haven't seen it, or until now even heard of it, myself. There are all kinds of classification systems, the Cronquist and APG II systems only being two of the more prominent (in the USA at least), but no two systems will be in agreement so when discussing a particular name it's always necessary to qualify whose sense of that name is being used. All classifications are opinions, as I've said many times before, and the only real way to be NPOV is to discuss the different ways in which particular taxa are circumscribed and names applied to them in the various systems. MrDarwin 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Ehrendorfer? Isn't that F Ehrendorfer the Winteraceae researcher? He also does Caryophyllaceae, Rubiaceae and Brassicaceae off the top of my head. He's probably at least as well known as Reveal, probably better known than Reveal. I didn't know he had his own plant classification system, though. KP Botany 00:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
There are so many different classification systems, it's impossible to keep track of them all. This is one reason why I've been skeptical of Wikipedia "adopting" the APG system--it's just one of many competing systems, and will be superseded by the next one to come along. One big advantage of the Cronquist system, with all its flaws, is that he explained it in detail, gave descriptions of all the taxa, and even discussed the things that didn't quite fit (and the misfit taxa are turning out to be the really interesting ones!). Too many other classifications are little more than lists or tables of names. MrDarwin 01:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't give much credence to the descriptions. I bought the book not too long after it came out, and it became readily apparent that the descriptions (1) weren't often parallel in construction, making it difficult to compare families, and (2) included only the most obvious synapomorphies (of course that wasn't Cronquist's intent, and he was pretty much an anti-cladist, but a synapomorphy is as good a diagnostic feature as any other). Perhaps in an uncharitable mood, I once said that the book was only useful for its nomenclatural information on families.
Not so much to brag but rather to indicate how ancient I am, I had several conversations with Cronquist (I may have been the last California botanist to see him alive), I know Bob Thorne reasonably well, and I've met Takhtajan, Dahlgren, and Reveal (as well as Peter Stevens, of course). Now where are my Geritol and Preparation H?

--Curtis Clark 04:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought Europeans use Takhtajan system more than the others, though, and, is it Thorne system that is broadly accepted for monocots? Still, yes, it's flawed. APG II has the advantage that it is not a system done by one person, and, like K----zi whatever, individual sections were done by experts in those areas rather than one person doing all--although sometimes I'm not certain that's the advantage folks think it is. Then, can I get you to agree that the taxobox should list which system it is based upon at least? The Reveal system, by the way, is simply his best mix of other systems. Takhtajan is supposed to be rather detailed, also, although I have not read his latest. KP Botany 02:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plant ID help needed

We're getting the bloom clock underway on wikiversity, but I'm stumped on an unidentified plant that's there now... quince maybe? I think over the long term we're going to need help with this (I'm pretty good at ID as long as it grows in my climate, but not for others), see Bloom clock project/What's this plant for the photos. If you know the name, hit edit and the template is self-explanatory (it becomes a "quiz" after that). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galium monograph?

Is there a good monograph for Galium? Not only could the article use the ref, but (unusually) Jepson doesn't have a reference either. I think I may have photos of the uncommon G. proliferum, but info online is rather sketchy. Been reading Leuenberger's monograph on Pereskia lately, wish every genus had a ref like that. Stan 17:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about a specific monograph, but I suspect their might be because of the extensive amount of research done on the Rubiaceae in general. There are some North American, maybe Central American works by Lauramay T Dempster, which are fairly well known, and there's a pamphlet that I've seen in the weed library at work which may be "Notes on the genus Galium" by Roxana S Ferris (which came up at Amazon). KP Botany 00:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desperately seeking edit to Fabaceae

This article is unreadable because of a certain editor. Could someone please make the introductory section readable? Thanks. KP Botany 00:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Better now?--Curtis Clark 05:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, English, who'd have known it was such a handylanguage to use on en.Wikipedia? The last 2 sentences of point 2 need reworked a bit. I'll look at it. I just couldn't do it after formating a lengthy list that disappeared in the ether of cyberspace--but it had to be done. KP Botany 17:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Is there a template for the wikiproject that can be used on plant article talk pages to assess/sort them? I can't see one around, so I presume this project doesn't have one yet. If one could be created that would be great, I was just looking for something suitable for clover and biology is far too general to place on the talk page. Richard001 04:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This had been discussed earlier on this talk page. The discussion is archived here. I agree with what SB_Johnny says there--the backlog would be huge, considering this WikiProject's scope. I think if something was created, we wouldn't mind placing them on new articles we create (or at least I wouldn't mind). I suppose a bot could be utilized for the remainder if it just spidered through the plant categories. Would be a lot of work, though. --Rkitko 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I see... I find the templates handy as an easily visible way of rating an article and placing it in a project which gives guidelines on writing. Would it be possible to add rating/importance fields, or would the amount of articles make it too much work? Richard001 05:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well... Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment gives a number of 7,000+ articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Assessment is just short of 8,000, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment has no less than 37,000 articles accounted for, so I don't see why we couldn't...Circeus 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not against it - it would allow us to track progress and set priorities. --NoahElhardt 23:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New York Botanical Garden

Hello WP Plants, I don't know if you're the WikiProject to handle this, but I've found New York Botanical Garden orphaned by any WikiProject, and was wondering if yours is the one to assess it. Best, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I added it to the WikiProject NY for now. I don't know if plants folks assess the botanical garden articles or not, but it does belong to NY also. Thanks for the notice. KP Botany 03:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Microformat

Please be aware of the proposed Species microformat, particularly in relation to taxoboxes. Comments welcome on the wiki at that link. Andy Mabbett 15:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure out what this is? KP Botany 18:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Microformats are a way of adding simple markup to human-readable data items such as events, contact details or locations, on web pages, so that the information in them can be extracted by software and indexed, searched for, saved, cross-referenced or combined. More technically, they are items of semantic markup, using just standard (X)HTML with a set of common class-names. They are open and available, freely, for anyone to use.
The proposed format respects all existing biological taxonomies, and is not intended to change or supplant any of them - it merely provides webmasters with a method of either:
  1. marking-up a taxonomical name (or taxon-common name pair) in such a way that its components can be recognised by computers
  2. marking up a common name, so as to associative with it a taxonomical name, in such a way that the latter's components can be recognised by computers
For instance, if I mark up a list of common names on a website using that microformat, a visitor might have browser tool which lists all the species on the page, sorted into alphabetical order within taxonomic class, or in taxonomic order, and then creates links to, say (for Joe Public) their entries on Wikipedia, or (for scientists) some academic database of the users choosing. For content on Wikipedia, the lookup could be on some other website of the user's choosing..
Have a look at the Straw Man proposal, and the examples below that, and please let me know if you need further clarification. Andy Mabbett 20:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like something similar to Persondata. Circeus 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, though it's closer to "taxoboxes"; not least because "microformatted" data is generally intended to be visible to the user. The format is usable by any publishing or parsing website, and any parsing tool. It would be relatively trivial to arrange to have "Persondata" published with hCard microformat mark-up, simply by applying some standard class names to its containing elements. Andy Mabbett 21:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
As someone brightly said on the list-serve, pretend I'm stupid, and 8-years-old. KP Botany 02:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
From what I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), its a way of attaching information to words or phrases. Say you have a sentence on your website that contains the term Quercus agrifolia. Using these "microformats", you could also attach a number of invisible labels to that term, such as "Coast live oak", "Quercus", and "Plant". Other programs could then use these invisible labels to generate useful links or lists. For example, one could make the terms automatically link to an appropriate website (such as a website on "oaks of california" or the appropriate Wikipedia entry). As another example, a program could easily generate a list of all the terms on your webpage that you labeled as "Plant" or as "Quercus". Microformats would basically allow us to assign more identities to terms we use in articles without decreasing readability. --NoahElhardt 06:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it could be used like that, but that's not best practice, It's really intended for marking up such information, when it's already visible to the user, such as in a taxobox. Where all that's visible is a binomial name, or a vernacular name then they're all that would be marked up using the microformat. Your suggested use-cases are correct. Andy Mabbett 11:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the tagging automated by (the wikimedia server making) use of the taxobox entries and looking at pages linking into species articles ? Or is this something we as article authors would need to add manually to links ? Hoping for the former:) Shyamal 14:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[Indents reset] I'd suggest that microformats are "built in" to taxoboxes, and that tools be made available for people who wish to mark-up taxonomic info elsewhere in pages; in the way that Wikitravel listings work. Andy Mabbett 15:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I understood what Noah said, then Andy said, no, that not the purpose or "not best practice," and more unsuitable for a stupid 8-year-old. I still have no idea what the purpose of this is. KP Botany 01:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 :) I think this might help - Semantic web. It is not actually for humans, its for the machines ! Shyamal 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
KP Botany- It's about taking visible information, meant for humans, such as that in a taxobox, and wrapping it in something that says to your computer this is the genus and this is the vernacular name, and so on, so that your computer can then go and find it for you, on your favourite academic biology reference site, or in Flickr, or wherever or, if you're seeing it elsewhere, here on Wikipedia. Or can present you with a list of all the species listed on a page in, say, alphabetical or taxonomic order. It could even say to your software that "Parus major" is special - when you translate this English page into German, don't translate "major" to "hauptsächlich"! Andy Mabbett 19:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it's like XML. Thanks. KP Botany 02:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Article-less pictures

I'm sure everybody has plenty of their own stuff to do, but just wanted to call people's attention to User:Stan Shebs/Plant taxa, which is an auto-generated list of genera and species for which I've uploaded photos. In particular note a number of red links for genera, especially among the Asteraceae. I have a 18-month backlog of photos to upload, need to work on that instead of articles or I'll never catch up. :-) Stan 18:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asteraceae book

Hey, I got Kare and Bremer's 1994 book on the Asteraceae from the library today. Seems very interesting, but will it lead me into error? I notice Asteraceae doesn't mention it. Stan 03:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Asteraceae doesn't mention much to begin with. When I searched for stuff on Aceraceae I found contemporary works that gave at least 3 different taxonomic status for the family. Circeus 16:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Only three? Have fun, both of you. KP Botany 00:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I found three status for Aceraceae (as a family, as subfamily Aceroidae of Sapindaceae, or within subfamily Hippocatanoideae), not Asteraceae. My uni library doesn't seem to have much stuff on non-ligneous plants: I did not find any material when I looked for stuff on Hieracium. Circeus 14:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Aceraceae should be fun, at least compared to the tedium of Asteraceae. I love the Aster family, but it's a lot of work. We have a genuine world-famous Asteraceae expert at my school, so I'm sure the library is overburdened with Aster tribal warfare tomes. KP Botany 00:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, then I'm just going to type in what I learn, and not watch any of the pages, so I won't be annoyed when it's reverted because "everybody knows Kare and Bremer are obsolete". 1/2 :-) Stan 03:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean Kåre Bremer, 1994, Asteraceae—cladistics and classification?--Curtis Clark 05:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's the one. It seems especially useful for general discussion of the various tribes. Stan 06:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It's outdated in a number of areas, but I think it has beautiful descriptions in it of the tribes that would be quite useful for Wikipedia, without causing you grief, although you would have to check to make sure the circumscriptions are the same. I forgot about this, as I've only looked through it a few times and avoid the Asteraceae like the plague, except for in my vases.KP Botany 03:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging?

I am not a part of this project, but I was wondering if there was a way to tag articles revelant to the project, a feature many projects have. — Emiellaiendiay 00:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Look right above under #Template.Circeus 01:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Thank you. If that is so, I suppose I'll mention here an article I truly don't know how to improve (Nassella laevissima), since I don't know much about plants, in case anyone might be able to help out. — Emiellaiendiay 16:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I hope I don't ruffle anybody's feathers here. I've modified the banner referenced above to include all articles upon which it is placed in the Category:WikiProject Plants articles. I suppose it could be modified later for assessments. I will be adding the template to all the articles I think might fall within the scope of your project which appear on the list Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/VA tagging, including first Carolus Linnaeus, the first one that appears on the list, partially at least for the benefit of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. I hope you all understand that you are free to remove the banner from any article which you think doesn't fall within the scope of your project. John Carter 20:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Great timing! This was on my mind as the project-of-the-evening. I just recently updated the WikiProject Carnivorous plants grading system to the proper template assessment technique. All I have to do is tweak it a bit for our purposes here at this project and we'll be good to go. Thanks for getting it rolling! --Rkitko 03:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climacteric

I may have created a monster over at Climacteric (towards the bottom, section "In Botany"). I tried to say just as much about the subject as I could cite (which was small), and then someone expanded it (with the kind of information I would have liked to include but couldn't find), without a cite. I'm not sure the result is competely coherent - for example, is climacteric a stage in ripening or a certain kind of fruit? What does "this definition" refer to? At least for now I put on an expert tag and decided to ask here for help. Kingdon 00:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I left what was already there alone but added a more precise description, see if that helps?? Hardyplants 05:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done a bit of copy-editing and wikifying. Although we could still use more citing of sources, help on the ripening article, etc, I'm going to call this a success and move on at least for now. Kingdon 15:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agave syrup

I've been watching, with a mixture of amusement and horror, an edit war going on at a marginally plant-related article, Agave syrup. This article shows Wikipedia at its very worst: as a repository of unsubstantiated claims and outright nonsense, based almost entirely on the claims of commercial websites advertising a product, with no links in the article other than to those same websites. I tried to get rid of the commercial links, while explaining why they were problematic, but it's clear that there is one editor who is guarding the article and will not allow the removal of even the most outrageous nonsense. MrDarwin 13:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean - on my watchlist now. Stan 15:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I haven't tried editing the article more aggressively because I haven't been able to find any decent information on this subject. It raises questions about how to handle articles about (primarily) commercial products, and how to provide (or even find) factual and verifiable information about those products without providing free advertising for their manufacturers and distributors. Most of the information in the article is coming from commercial sources, and most of it is bunk. Several editors have tried deleting the commercial links, but one editor keeps adding them back in, on the excuse that they are the only available source of information. If that's true, then I would question why the subject merits an article in Wikipedia in the first place. MrDarwin 16:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It isn't quite as grim as you think. For some products, like maple syrup, a search engine search like "maple syrup site:usda.gov" gets quite a few hits (actually we could probably cite more of those in wikipedia's maple syrup article). As for Agave Syrup, no hits at usda.gov, so I tried scholar.google.com - lots of joy there (even after you filter out those describing agave necter as consumed by bats as opposed to humans). I put 3 of the relevant papers in the agave syrup article. I ran out of steam after that, but not because I ran out of potentially citable articles. Kingdon 22:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silvics manuals

The USDA Silvics Manual is public domain work which can be imported into Wikipedia in a way to give high quality articles with little effort. I started Pignut Hickory which was a redlink I needed to link to from Wikisource. All I have done is copy and past and add ='s to format the headings. It needs to be wikified, tables properly formatted, and references formatted. But you can see how nice of an article it would be after someone does that bit of work. There are probaly a large number of redlinks that can be made from this public domain reasource. Here is the synopsis:

“ The silvical characteristics of about 200 forest tree species and varieties are described. Most are native to the 50 United States and Puerto Rico, but a few are introduced and naturalized. Information on habitat, life history, and genetics is given for 15 genera, 63 species, and 20 varieties of conifers and for 58 genera, 128 species, and 6 varieties of hardwoods. These represent most of the commercially important trees of the United States and Canada and some of those from Mexico and the Caribbean Islands, making this a reference for virtually all of North America. A special feature of this edition is the inclusion of 19 tropical and subtropical species. These additions are native and introduced trees of the southern border of the United States from Florida to Texas and California, and also from Hawaii and Puerto Rico. ”

I have other projects which I have already undertaken and am not planning on doing further work on this. So I thought I would point it out to you since it was such a good find.--BirgitteSB 15:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banksia epica FAC

Hi folks,

I came here to let you all know that Banksia epica is at FAC.

How come this project doesn't have an "announcements" section for information about plant-related FACs, AFDs, PRs, etc? I'd encourage you to think about introducing one, as posting such announcements as talk page messages always feels too much like canvassing to me.

Hesperian 01:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (on behalf of your daughter project WP:BANKSIA)

We've been waiting for you to add one. :-) Be bold! This is probably a first for plants, so hasn't been a previous need. Stan 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to say bravo! to the folks at WP:BANKSIA for such a great job on their featured articles. Banksia epica has been promoted to FA status. Keep up the good work! :-) -Rkitko 01:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sudden oak death

Hi. There's a request at WP:RM to rename Sudden oak death to Phytophthora ramorum. I read on WP:NC(flora) that "Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following, as determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion on the WikiProject Plants talk page." I don't know whether Sudden oak death falls under the exception of "Plants which are economically or culturally significant enough to merit their own page."

Come to think of it, P. ramorum isn't a plant, so much as a protist, but perhaps the same convention applies? Wikipedia:WikiProject Prokaryotes and protists seems to be inactive. Perhaps this is the right place to ask for opinions on the page move? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Sudden oak death" isn't a species, it's a disease. Some parallels are tuberculosis, which has separate articles on its two causative organisms, and bubonic plague, with a separate article on Yersinia pestis. Dutch elm disease, on the other hand, combines the disease and the organism.
Ideally, there would be enough information for separate articles on the disease and the organism. In the case of sudden oak death, I think it could go either way.--Curtis Clark 14:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Splitting makes sense to me - the article is longish now, and seems to shift back and forth between organism and disease. For instance, detailed statistics on the oak toll and control measures being taken in particular areas are really about the disease, not the species. Stan 16:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually I think it's fine where it is - I think that disease and the organism go together well. I was trying to find the move discussion - there doesn't appear to be one at Talk:Sudden oak death. Guettarda 18:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research in several articles

Hi guys. Since it's really not my topic, I wanted to inform you of the recent edits to a number of Flora-related articles. Hope I got the right WikiProject.

Articles such as Berberis buxifolia, Araucaria araucana, Quinoa, Beach Strawberry and probably others currently include unsourced information on where they could also be grown, usually in a Future section. This seams to me like a clear original research, and should therefore be deleted.

The anon user behind such edits uses IPs such as 200.79.169.243, 200.79.169.244, 200.79.169.245, 200.79.169.246, etc.

Thanks, --Mariano(t/c) 11:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to check this morning, but there is a website called "plants for a future" that discusses "underutilized crops", so this material might originate from there. I'm not sure if that website is peer reviewed though. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 14:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I took a look at the articles in question and agree that such speculation does not belong in articles (unless it is explicitly referenced from a verifiable source) and should be reverted or otherwise removed, but I would suggest making a note on the article and/or user talk page explaining why you are doing so. There is already far too much unreferenced and/or unverifiable information, even outright nonsense, in too many Wikipedia articles, and it's time to start holding them to a higher standard. I'm not actively editing lately so for now I will leave the dirty work to others! MrDarwin 14:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I would move the bits to talk page, at least until the website's credentials are established. "Could be grown" comments are perfectly fine if attributed to somebody authoritative - "The FAO has suggested that quinoa could be grown in Scotland as a substitute for haggis [1]". Stan 15:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I had a few minutes while I was waiting for a compile, so I went ahead and moved the text in question to the talk page for the 4 articles listed above. I didn't go searching for other affected articles. I wish the author of this text would create an account or come from the same IP every time; based on evidence to date I suspect they are quite unaware that there is anything inappropriate about this content and quite puzzled when it goes away (at least at Beach Strawberry there was one previous revert by User:Marianocecowski). Kingdon 18:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and just for the record, I checked the relevant entries at Plants For A Future and it does not seem to be the source for these edits, at least not in any direct kind of way. Plants For A Future is written in something much closer to an encyclopedic tone, they cite their sources, etc. Kingdon 18:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The user we had been concerned about seems to have begun constructive edits, for example: [2]. A victory for the "welcome to wikipedia, and here's how to do it better" tone, perhaps. Kingdon 01:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming convention

WP:NC (flora) appears to say nothing about capitalisation of common names (unlike birds, for example). Thus, am I right in concluding that Saw Palmetto should be at Saw palmetto, or am I missing something? Guettarda 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No. It should Serenoa repens, since the naming convention clearly states that Latin names should be used for page titles except in a few exception. :) --NoahElhardt 22:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Saw palmetto might be worth an exception, since it's everyone's favourite herbal supplement these days (not saying it should be, but you could make the case). But I just wanted to make sure there was no exception I was missing. Guettarda 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The current convention (which hasn't been fully rolled out yet) is that the taxon should always be at the scientific name, but there may, and usually should, be a separate article on the plant product. For example, Coconut really ought to be split into two articles: an article about the taxon at Cocos nucifera, and an article about the plant product at Coconut. The same applies here: the article on the taxon belongs at Serenoa repens. Discussion of the herbal supplement should either be at Saw Palmetto; or in a "Uses" section of Serenoa repens, in which case Saw Palmetto would be a redirect. Hesperian 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There's no agreement on capitalization in those cases where a common name is appropriate. Past discussion among botanical editors has been pretty evenly split. Stan 22:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what Stan said. Wikipedia's policy in the case of capitalization is that either is correct and typically you refer to the style of the original author. You can find one of our discussions on this topic here from August 2006. You can clearly see no consensus. --Rkitko 02:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linnaean taxonomy

This article is in desperate need of attention from a botanist and I don't have time right now. The number of ranks has exploded with several I have never even heard of. I assume this is coming from the zoologists but most of the new ranks cannot be applied to plants. MrDarwin 14:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amaranthaceae vs. Chenopodiaceae

If the majority of taxonomists recognise Chenopodiaceae (as the article says), then Chenopodiaceae should be in the category Chenopodiaceae, not Amaranthaceae. The current situation seems to give undue weight. --Eleassar my talk 14:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Around here, they're just called "chenopods" - one could finesse the issue by redirecting both family and subfamily names to it. "Majority of taxonomists" doesn't seem like a good basis for choosing - for that matter, what's the authority for that statement? APG use does have the advantage of being verifiable. Stan 15:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, more sources should be found that treat Chenopodiaceae as a subfamily. In all the literature that is available to me (except APG) Chenopodiaceae are treated as a family. --Eleassar my talk 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think treating it as a family in the article is fine, since the article is about the family Chenopodiaceae, not about the subfamily Chenopodioideae. Let's treat it as a subfamily in the article about the subfamily. IPNI treats it as a family as far as I can tell. I believe most sources appear to be moving towards the APG classification, subsuming the family in the Amaranthaceae--but we don't have to go there other than to reliably quote sources using this scheme, and allow the family article to be about the family. KP Botany 21:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
What about categorization? Should the article Beet be in the category Amaranthaceae or Chenopodiaceae? The taxobox and the category are in dispute currently. --Eleassar my talk 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This issue should be discussed on the article's talk page, so concerned editors can weigh in. If the editors cannot reach agreement, then bring it by here--but the first step is to dialogue the situation on the article's talk page. So, simply add a discussion there, titling it Which family or some such, then present your arguments for which family you think should be used, tying it in to specific references, then wait for replies, read and consider other opinions, and see if consensus can be reached. KP Botany 21:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I have corrected classification of Beet and Chenopodiaceae now (per [3]) and am planning to recategorize other taxa traditionally belonging to the family Chenopodiacae too. --Eleassar my talk 07:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Sources

Hey, I'm just new to the project, but I'm very eager to write many articles. All I need to get going is some reliable sources of content. Is there any universally accepted source of information that I could use? If you know of any, please add below Anonymous Dissident 10:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We're humans, so univerally acceptable? Not a snoball's chance in hades of that. Tell us about your interests and background in plants and folks will be glad to make some suggestions, as there are tons of unwritten and poorly written botanical articles that could use the attention of an eager editor. KP Botany 19:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)