Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Plants: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:16, 19 November 2013 editChoess (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators78,763 edits →Wikispecies: comments on plant taxonomy, and governance← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:42, 9 January 2025 edit undoChidgk1 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions60,274 edits →Need help with banana tree: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{align|right
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2007-12-17/WikiProject report|writer= ]|||day =17|month=December|year=2007}}
|{{NOINDEX|visible=yes}}
{{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Plants/Navbox}}
}}
{| align="left" style="background:transparent;"
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Plants/Tab header}}
|valign="top"| __TOC__
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2007-12-17/WikiProject report|writer= ]|||day =17|month=December|year=2007}}
|valign="top"|{{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Plants/Archives}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot II |age=2 |units=months |small=yes |index=/Archive index }}
{{WikiProject Plants}}
|}<br clear=all>
}}
{{Navbox
|name = WikiProject Plants/Navbox
|state = off
|navbar = off
|title = WikiProject Plants Discussion Navigation
|titlestyle = background: #8AB681;
|listclass = hlist
|list1 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|list2 = ]: ]
}}
{{Archives|search=yes|list={{Archive list|prefix=Archive|start=54}}|title=Archives since 2011|box-width=22em}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan|prefix=Archive}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 62 |counter = 78
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(60d)
|algo = old(21d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive%(counter)d
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive<#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}

== Infraspecific ==

Hey all. Please participate in the discussion in ] regarding how to proceed with the proposed creation of a page on the term "Infraspecific".--&nbsp;<small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small>

== Copyright concerns related to your project ==

This notice is to advise interested editors that a ] has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Misplaced Pages on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with ]. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located ].

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. This one is really brief compared to most, and your help could get it taken care of quickly. This is good for the articles as well as for contributors. Personally, I feel terrible for people who come in behind contributors who do this and improve content that winds up having to be discarded. The sooner we can get a usable base in place, the sooner we can begin building material we can ''keep''. There are instructions for participating on that page.

Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at ], or from ]. Thank you. <!--Template:CCI-project--> --] <sup>]</sup> 12:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

== Senecio erucifolius vs. Jacobaea erucifolia ==

Hi everyone,

According to the The Global Compositae Checklist Senecio erucifolius and Jacobaea erucifolia are two different plant species, with two different homeranges S. erucifolius and J. erucifolia . Could someone tell me his/her opinion about this, please? Regards. ] (]) 08:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
:
:A lot of '''''Senecio''''' species are now placed in genus '''''Jacobaea'''''. As reported in ], ''Jacobaea erucifolia'' (L.) Gaertn. et al. is a synonym of ''Senecio erucifolius'' L. --] <small>(])</small> 12:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
::That's indeed what tells us. ] (]) 12:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
:That both names are accepted is an error - the names are nomenclatural synonyms and by definition cannot refer to different species. The different geographic ranges needs another explanation - I'd guess that one record takes a broad conception of the species, and the other a narrow conception (the rest of the range being occupied by a closely related species). ] (]) 12:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

OK thank. Thank you very much for your help and explanations! Regards. ] (]) 15:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
:If you look carefully at The Global Compositae Checklist entries, it seems clear that the statement that ''Senecio erucifolius'' is accepted is in error, because infraspecific taxa of this species are referred to ''Jacobaea erucifolia''. (I sent them a query using the feedback form and got an automated reply saying that the editor is on maternity leave.) ] (]) 19:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

== Active botanists ==

There are many Misplaced Pages categories having the form "Botanists active in ...." Is this supposed to mean living botanists only? Or also dead botanists who were active in those regions? See ].
] (]) 18:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
:It seems clear that it means anyone, living or dead, who was active as a botanist in those areas. In those categories I've looked at, all entries have been famous botanists of the past. ] (]) 19:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
::Okay, thanks. I'll add a clarifying note. There are lots of Misplaced Pages categories for "active politicians" which seems to refer just to living people.] (]) 19:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

== Thorns, spines, and prickles ==

I edited the first paragraph of ], if someone wants to correct the redaction. --] (]) 12:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

== Proposal to change name ] ==

I'd like to propose to change that name for something like "Sharp-pointed plant defensive mechanisms" because it has to cover more spiny structures than thorns, spines and prickles. I proposed that on the talk page and AfadsBad told me to post it here. --] (]) 22:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
:It should be discussed there, but it's good to alert people here. ] (]) 08:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

== Deletion nomination List of Flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley ==

An article with a list of flora for one of my favorite ecosystems is up for deletion . One cannot categorize plants by ecosystem, as the categories get deleted. A lst article seems perfect for this. I would appreciate support for keeping the article or suggestions for how to proceed otherwise from plant editors. Thanks. --(] (]) 05:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

== Tree book ==

Does anybody here have a copy of ''Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast'' by Robert Van Pelt? This isn't a big deal, but the '']'' article could use a page number in a citation. ] ] 02:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

:Will this Google Books link help? ] (]) 02:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

::No, unfortunately that limited preview will only let me see the index listing for the tree without actual information about it. ] ] 23:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

:::If you type in Quinalt redcedar to the search box for that Google book, you will see that one of the preview boxes gives you a small image of the full information on pg 181. It lists it at 174'. The second ref in the article lists the Quinalt at 53.0 m, which is 173.885 ft; so it looks like the text of the article doesn't match both references. Perhaps someone changed it to reflect current growth, but didn't add a reference? If you need anything else in that book, they have a copy at my local library, just let me know. --] (]) 17:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

== File:Potato radiograph for CT.jpg ==

] has been nominated for deletion. There's been statements made at WT:MED that radiographs (X-rays) are unencumbered by copyright concerns; I have no idea if this would apply to a plant. -- ] (]) 07:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

== Not understanding reviewing ==

I recently started doing some New Page Patrolling; not a lot yet, but I've started. I've learned that we're to look for things that don't meet wiki standards such as articles that qualify for speedy deletion, hoaxes, obvious junk, etc. I just made three more new articles, my 21st-23rd. Full list is here: ]. While I do work in a narrow area and my new articles are not usually large in size, I don't make junk. So why are a reliable editor's new articles required to be reviewed? It seems rather inefficient to me. ] (]) 23:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:You can ] for ] rights and then you won't have to worry about it anymore! ] (]) 23:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::Ah OK! I applied. And Sasata, thank you for your Did You Know tips, I recently filed my first request on the Did You Know nomination page. ] (]) 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
:I would review your articles for now, except, with the first one I find that all of the doi's are wrong. If you use the JSTOR template does it automatically fill in the DOI? Plant articles tend to be ignored on the list, because few editors are capable of the type of review necessary, or are scared. I got told, oh, it would only take a second, but it doesn't if you are clueless about plant articles. I have recently had to update a bunch by one editor to APG III. I don't think that's covered in reviewing articles, but editors are afraid of plants. --(] (]) 00:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
::Mgiganteus1 told me the JSTOR template ceased filling in automatically some time ago. So I have to to them by hand but it does still build the DOI automatically, so there must be some glitch. That hardly warrants not granting auto reviewed, it's not like NPP is doing a Good Article or above level review. ] (]) 01:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
:::No, it should not impact autoreviewed, but admins seem over enthusiastic about keeping a queue. Your articles are encyclopedic, written in English, sourced. I would check for copyvio problems, in general, before making an editor autoreviewed. For what it is worth, I will put in a word about your article quality at permissions. --(] (]) 01:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
::::The patrollers are doing a very minimal check; patrolling new articles doesn't require special expertise in any subject. New article patrollers are looking for stuff that could expose Misplaced Pages to legal issues (blatant copyright violations, libel about living persons), and making sure that articles are plausibly notable (not obviously hoaxes or spam). Broken references (or even lack of references) isn't something the new article patrol fixes.
::::It is quite helpful to also have somebody looking at new articles for other issues. References, grammar, taxoboxes, categorization, and stub sorting are good things to check. If you're interested in doing further review of new plant related articles, watch the page ]. The bots algorithm does include some non-plant related false positives, but seems to cover most new plant articles. ] (]) 02:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::Oh, good tip. I didn't know there was a plant specific listing. ] (]) 03:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
::::::And having your articles appear on this list will matter much more than their being reviewed by a random user. I say don't worry about it, even though it is annoying, and keep writing! --(] (]) 03:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC))

== ] references ==

I had trouble getting proper reference info for some species named after Forman. I asked Mgiganteus1 for help and he posted this in response: ]..."These might be quite difficult to track down. I've had a quick look and it doesn't appear that the journals in question have online back issues (or even content lists) going that far back. Searching for the species name + journal proved equally fruitless. Maybe someone over at WikiProject Plants could help?". References 4,5,6 need more info and there is one species I commented out because it was described in 1942 and claimed named after him but he was only 13 at the time, so it wasn't likely. Thank you if anyone can help. ] (]) 22:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

:Done, I think. The Gardner reference would be "Contributiones Florae Australiae Occidentalis XI", but I can't find an online copy to check the etymology of the epithet. --] (]) 00:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
::Oh wow, thank you! Very kind of you. ] (]) 00:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

== '']'' peer review ==

I just listed '']'' at ]. If anyone has time, would you be so kind as to look at this article, especially the medical/pharmacological issues, which are in ]? The peer review page suggested asking at wikiprojects for help. I've also notified some users who have been helping me. I appreicate any assistance anyone can provide. ] (]) 01:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
::RoRo--I will work on your comments. I've moved them to the peer review page as I think it's more appropriate there. I hope that is ok. If not, feel free to change it back. ] (]) 22:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Oh it's ok, that was the place. --] (]) 14:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

== ] ==

Does '']'' and '']'' are synonyms? http://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Nag%20Kuda.html says so. Further, Misplaced Pages has only '']'' page and Commons has only '']'' category. But Wikispecies has both ] and ]. ]] ]]] 04:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
::Good catch. I've updated wikispecies (but am unable to see whether the GRIN citation disagrees with WCSP because of the indefinite shutdown of USDA services). '']'' has a move request now listed on its talk page. ] (]) 17:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Thanks. ]] ]]] 03:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Thank goodness for the of the GRIN entry. Appears there was a to conserve ''T. heyneana'' against ''T. alternifolia'' and ''T. crispa''. Ultimately, it would appear that conservation was not recommended so ''T. alternifolia'' is the correct name. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 03:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
::::The conservation proposal and the decision of the Committee for Spermatophyta are interesting. One of the points made in the proposal is that the plant does not have alternate leaves as the name ''T. alternifolia'' implies. The reasons for rejection include that the plant has a rather small distribution, and that most authors (but not all) had been using the name ''T. alternifolia''. ] (]) 15:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::I discussed this with and his reply is
{{cot}}
"''As far as I can discover, the names T. alternifolia and T. heyneana both apply to the one species and so are synonyms. The question is, which should be used.

For 100 years or so the plant in question was known as T. heyneana Wall., following the treatment of Hooker in Flora of British India vol 3 (1882), which can be viewed here - http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/61978#page/656/mode/1up
Hooker only mentioned T. alternifolia L. in discussion under T. crispa Roxb. (on p. 648).
Going to The Plant List website at http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/record/kew-200557 we find both T. heyneana and T. crispa listed as synonyms under T. alternifolia, the "Accepted name".

I suspect this synonymy is the result of recent more intensive studies by botanists such as Middleton and Leeuwenberg, who have both worked on Asian Apocynaceae. However, I do not have online access to the botanical papers on the subject, as I am just a retired person and not affiliated with a scientific library.

Googling the names did reveal, however, that in 1998 Middleton and Leeuwenberg jointly made a proposal for the conservation of the name T. heyneana, under Article 14 of the International Code of Nomenclature ( http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art14 ), arguing that it was the best-known name and that applications of the earlier-published names T. alternifolia and T. crispa had been greatly confused. However, I cannot find any evidence that the proposal was accepted, whch means T. alternifolia L. remains as the name that has priority.

Hope this helps. Please feel free to copy it (with acknowledgment) to .''"
{{cob}}
::::: ]] ]]] 16:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::To clarify Tony Rudd's comments, as noted above the proposal to conserve ''T. heyneana'' was rejected ( for those with access). ] (]) 09:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::As I understand, all proposals and responses in Taxon related to the ICN are open access (on the site). ] (]) 20:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::::That's useful information, because the same articles aren't open access on JSTOR. ] (]) 21:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::There's quite a bit of stuff that isn't open access on JSTOR, but is open access elsewhere. For example, IIRC, a lot of AmJBot. ] (]) 08:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

== AfC submission ==

There's a very meticulous article up for ] at AfC, but I'm not sure how to approach it. Mind having a look? Thanks! ] (]) 15:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:The two things that leapt out at me are 1) I'm not sure the tree measurement wikis would be considered valid references and 2) formatting of many references could use some work. ] (]) 16:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

:It's written as a how-to, and it needs to be completely rewritten. The references are a bit poor, as HalfGig states, and references to the wiki should be removed. The topic is notable, and it is an appropriate article for Misplaced Pages. --(] (]) 16:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

::What's more, it's already a Misplaced Pages article; see ]. The referencing is an issue, though. --] (]) 16:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

== ] Good Article nomination ==

] is currently up for ].—Love, ''']''' ] 01:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

== Marbleleaf ==

Hi, sorry, first time I've contributed to Misplaced Pages, please delete this comment once someone in the know about how things are properly done has taken note of the point I'm making! And here it is: How come Carpodetus Serratus, Marbleleaf, doesn't appear in the list? Assuming this is just an oversight, could someone fix this up please? In the mean time, I'll have a look into how to do this kind of thing properly myself. Sorry to be a pain.] (]) 11:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:Moved this item to the end and gave it a heading. ] (]) 11:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I've added marbleleaf to the list of trees and shrubs in ] (coupled with ]) and made a redirect for ] so it will appear in the Misplaced Pages search box. Does that cover your concern?--] (]) 11:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

== ID request ==

]
I'm trying find out what this is. Many thanks for any help you can offer.

Other views:
*http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Unidentified_plant_in_Hainan_-_02.JPG
*http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Unidentified_plant_in_Hainan_-_03.JPG
*http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Unidentified_plant_in_Hainan_-_04.JPG
*http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Unidentified_plant_in_Hainan_-_05.JPG

] (]) 01:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

:There's a lot of guesswork involved in this, but it looks quite a lot like '''', which should at least occur in the area. Pictures of the base of the frond would help to be sure, especially of the scales. --] (]) 06:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
::Thank you so much. I'll get a pic of the rest of the plant as soon as I can find one. ] (]) 12:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
:::It looks like it's epiphytic judging from the '']'' (?) in the background. Does it have a "basket" at its base made of oak-like leaves? Could be '']''.--&nbsp;<small>]</small><font size="3" face =times new roman>†</font><small>]</small> 22:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
::::I didn't notice the base. Next time, I'll get more comprehensive photos. Sorry to bother you all with this one. I kept thinking it could only be one thing. I have to get it through my head that there are bzillions of species. ] (]) 23:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

== Kalpasi ==

Someone just wrote to the Wikimedia foundation noting that ] is a lichen not a flowering plant.

I see someone has made the same claim on the ].

I don't have enough subject matter knowledge to make the change, can someone help? --]] 16:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

:The IP's explanation at ] appeared to be spot on. I have fixed the article accordingly. --] (]) 17:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
::Thank-you very much, and good timing. I just got another email urging prompt action, so it was nice to be able to respond that it was done.--]] 13:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

== ID request ==

Can anyone help identify of a Brassicaceae species with yellow flowers, radish-like fruit, growing on a beach in Hawaii? ] (]) 15:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
:It's '']''. I uploaded it but miscategorized it. ] (]) 15:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
::The flowers, at least, are wrong for that. It looks like a Brassicaceae species, as Sminthopsis84 stated. ] (]) 15:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
:::I'm wrong. I'm sorry. I thought I'd added the Brassicaceae cats in err. I didn't realize until now. Here are all of them:

:::*https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Vigna_marina_(aka_beach_pea,_nanea,_notched_cowpea)_-_01.jpg
:::*https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Vigna_marina_(aka_beach_pea,_nanea,_notched_cowpea)_-_02.jpg
:::*https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Vigna_marina_(aka_beach_pea,_nanea,_notched_cowpea)_-_03.jpg
:::*https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Vigna_marina_(aka_beach_pea,_nanea,_notched_cowpea)_-_04.jpg
:::*https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Vigna_marina_(aka_beach_pea,_nanea,_notched_cowpea)_-_05.jpg

:::] (]) 15:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
::::All ''Vigna'' except #4 with the cruciform flowers, which is clearly growing in among the ''Vigna'' (love the last photo, by the way). ] (]) 16:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

:From the fruits, I'd guess at '''Raphanus raphanistrum''' ssp. '''landra''' (Mediterranean radish). ] (]) 17:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
::Looks just like it! Thanks! We'll probably have to make do with identifying it to species for now, since Commons and Misplaced Pages are still hesitant about the subspecies taxonomy. ] (]) 21:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Update on this story: I just received a message to say that the labelling on the original photo, which is , has been corrected. So, thanks to everyone who was involved in solving that puzzle, the world beyond the wiki has also benefited. ] (]) 17:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

== Polite request ==

Hello everybody. After a long, extended Wikibreak I'm back on enwp, and have just written an article on a plant - ]. I've never written an article like this before, and would really appreciate having an editor more versed in botanical articles have a look over it; especially making sure I correctly 'translated' the species description from into understandable English - is it enough to link to the words on Wiktionary, or should descriptions be provided on the page? How could I improve the article/what assessment grade is it as currently etc. I'm thinking of writing some more plant articles, so some feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, ] (]) 09:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
*Hi. Good new article there. My thoughts are: 1) Expand habitat, distributio, and uses sections. 2) This sentence: "With regards to the etymology of the binomial, "Silaum" is either derived from the yellow ochre -related to the colour of the plant's flowers -, could denote uncertainty or refer to the Sila in southern Italy." does not make sense to me. I'd suggest listing it at ] right away. ] ] 00:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
::Hi, thanks very much :) The article appeared on the front page in the DYK section on the 5th of November, and I'm pleased with it! My next project will be ] I think. ] (]) 21:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

== Classification of ''Heracleum maximum'' ==

‎In case this doesn't get noticed for a while ('']'' has less than 30 watchers), ] has brought up something that appears to need expert attention at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 16:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

== ''Azolla caroliniana'' or ''Azolla cristata'' ==

''Azolla'' terminology looks rather confused, but it may be the case that ''Azolla caroliniana'' is a synonym of ''Azolla filiculoides'' and the plant widely known as ''Azolla caroliniana'' is correctly called ''Azolla cristata''. Anyone know anything about these questions? ] (]) 17:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

== Requested moves for Big-cone pinyon, Tamarillo ==

There are a couple open plant related move requests at ] and ]. Very few editors have weighed in on the discussions, which I assume is due to a lack of awareness of the proposed move rather than a lack of interest in commenting. If you are interested in staying abreast of move discussions, please consider adding ] to your Watchlist. Notifications of proposed moves are not reliably posted on this talk page. ] (]) 00:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

== Bot for tagging articles with the WikiProject Plants banner ==

Are there any bot operators around? Or has anybody interacted with bot operators who might be amenable to my request? I know bots played a large role in adding the banners for this WikiProject to many articles on plant species. I've come across several articles on species (most notably ]) that were missing the banner on the talk page, but which were included in the taxonomic categorization scheme. Could a bot be made to drill through all the subcategories of ] and add the project banner to all the categorized articles that haven't already been flagged for WikiProject Plants? ] (]) 07:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

:This should be possible (I'm not a bot owner, by the way), but it would need to be more carefully targeted. Not all subcategories of ] are actually part of the taxonomic hierarchy; for instance, ] is a subcategory of ], but we wouldn't want to tag ] for this project (similarly, ] is in ], and there will be quite a few others). Perhaps if the bot checked that the category name was a term in the taxobox hierarchy (with or without a disambiguating term in brackets), that would limit it sufficiently. There would probably be more false negatives than false positives under that system, but it would certainly be a start. Alternatively, or additionally, it should be posible to use to report all the articles in the hierarchy not tagged for this project, and tackle the list manually if it's not too long; I've just dealt with ] by that route, but there might be too many for this approach to be feasible alone. --] (]) 10:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
::Ooh. Thanks. That is what I was looking for. ] mentioned CatScan to me a couple weeks ago, but I missed seeing Catscan version 2 when I did a search for Catscan (the previous version doesn't seem to allow searching for the intersection of categories/templates across Talk/Article space). Now that I can make CatScan do what I want, I see how many false positives (not very relevant to Plants Project) there are from a subcategory search. I'm happily poking through ] now for species articles without a Plants project banner. ] (]) 03:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


== Is World of Succulents a reliable source? ==
== Categorization question ==


Hi, noticed some red links and am thinking of helping the project by creating new articles. Looked up the sources guide in the main part of the project page and didn't find anything under keyword searches for cactus, cacti, or succulents. Please provide pointers if I've overlooked something. One of the most readily available online references on the topic is the . Would you regard it as an adequate source? ] (]) 02:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I've been trying to tidy up some of the angiosperm-related categories and have a question about how to handle categories which are too small.


:I can't find authorship information for the articles there (and the first article I clicked seemed to have been lifted wholesale from gardeningknowhow.com, obligingly linked). I get the strong impression that this is some kind of content aggregation setup and probably not reliable for our purposes. The relevant project sources are probably floras of particular regions (i.e., South Africa), which may explain why your sources on particular groups of plants didn't turn up anything. ] (]) 02:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Consider ] as an example. This is clearly too small, having only 4 members: 1 subcategory and 3 articles. (A minimum of around 9–10 members seems in practice to be the target.) There are two ways of fixing this:
::Thank you. That's not unexpected. Appreciate your reply. ] (]) 04:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::If you're a cactus and succulent enthusiast, and you have printed books on the topic, adding material sourced to those would be extremely valuable to the encyclopedia—we all have a tendency to pick low-hanging fruit (e.g., online sources). A lot of it is old out-of-copyright material, but is also a good place to look for material of interest. ] (]) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Biodiversity Heritage is great, but you are right that it is mostly old out of copyright stuff. I find getting an account at and searching their book catalog for species names to be a fairly useful technique. As a succulent example if I put in "'']''" as a search in the book contents I get a lot of results. Government reports, old journals (the same ones from biodiversity heritage), and also many recent books. Wildflower guide books, gardening books, natural history books, etc. Here is an intersting one from my example search by Stephenson published Timber Press. Seems like a good reliable source. Hurm. And the article for that stonecrop is rather light... I might have the next thing to work on. ] (]) 16:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Much obliged for the suggestions. ] (]) 05:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:Firstly, {{u|Baresbran}}, I see that you're new to Misplaced Pages: welcome!
:I would concur with {{u|Choess}} - while I don't see any particularly problematic information, the lack of authorship information is a big red flag. Best to avoid using that site and, on articles where it used as a reference, replace it with a higher quality source.
:For what it's worth, the excellent ''Illustated Handbook of Succulent Plants'' series is accessible through ] - this requires a 6 month old account and at least 500 edits, though I believe you can apply to access specific materials before those milestones. If you'd like any help finding more sources on succulents I would be happy to assist :) ] 🌿 (] &#124; ]) 09:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Sounds good. Have been checking proposed edits by running keyword searches on Google Scholar, so far. ] (]) 05:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Submitted proposed article ===
#Move all 16 members of ] upwards into ]. Advantages: all categories are of adequate size; there are no "gaps" in the category hierarchy. Disadvantage: the genus is large enough for its own category, so this is what editors and readers would expect.
#Move all 4 members of ] upwards into ]. Advantages: all categories are of adequate size; the genus ''Hernandia'' has its own category as would be expected. Disadvantage: there is a "gap" in the category hierarchy at the family level.


Have started going through redlinks at ], starting stub articles where reliable sources can be found. The first submission is waiting for review as ]. ] (]) 05:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I somewhat prefer (1), because I prefer not to have ranks missing while navigating down the taxonomic category hierarchy. However, it's a fine judgement.


== Category:Flora without expected TNC conservation status ==
Opinions, please. ] (]) 14:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


My apologies if this is something dreadfully obvious - I'm a new editor, so I'm just double-checking
:I would very strongly favour option 1. Even with all subcategories merged in, ] would contain only 19 articles. This is by no means too many to navigate easily (!), so there is no reason to split the category in the first place. Only when a category becomes cumbersome should it be split, which is unlikely to occur in this case, since the family only contains a few dozen species. There is no need for every genus, even every ''large'' genus, to have its own category; the decision to split a category into subcategories should be based on the size of the category before splitting. The ''minimum'' of 9–10 entries for a subcategory is therefore less important than the ''maximum'' size of a few hundred (a figure off the top of my head; there may be a guideline somewhere on this, but there would certainly need to be more than 100 articles before a split was required). It is often not worth merging categories up if it is likely that they will grow organically to reach an appropriate size, but that doesn't apply in this case. --] (]) 14:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


Once a TNC conservation status is added to an article in ], is it acceptable to remove the category tag from the article? ] (]) 13:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Ok, as no-one else has commented, I've fixed this case as per (1). I had thought this might work as a general principle, but ] presents a counter-example. As of the time of writing:
::*] had only 5 members, 2 subcategories and 3 articles, so needed dealing with.
::*However, its 2 subcategories have 65 and 91 members, as the genera ''Peperomia'' and ''Piper'' are large.
::So the solution seems to be to move all the members of Category:Piperaceae up to ], even though this leaves a "gap" in the hierarchy. ] (]) 10:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


:Yes. And thanks for doing the work. ] (]) 18:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
== Parenthetical disambiguators: (plant), (genus), (orchid), etc. ==


== World Flora Online ==
Is it worth putting something in the project guidelines suggesting the use of a particular disambiguator for genera with an ambiguous name? Current usage is pretty inconsistent, and I've noticed some moves from one disambiguator to another being reverted, so it might be worth discussing. There are 321 articles using "(plant)" as the disambiguator, 96 using "(genus)", 7 using "(plant genus)" 27 using "(orchid)", and 30 for fern/grass/moss/palm/legume.


The December update has been made on WFO Plant List and I've noticed that the updates haven't appeared in main WFO site. I was comparing '']'' as treated by Bryonames and WFO. ''Dicranella rufipes'' <small>(Müll. Hal.) Kindb.</small> is (still?) recognised as a species , but no longer or, with the December update, which have it as a synonym of '']'' <small>(Taylor) Müll.Hal.</small>.
I'm not a big fan of "(genus)"; it can still be ambiguous. I've come across maybe a half dozen articles dabbed with (genus) where there was also an animal genus with the same name. (plant) is less ambiguous and provides a little more information about what the subject of the article is. If a search engine gives lots of "wrong" results for an ambiguous genus name, I suspect that "plant" would be the most likely term added to refine the search. Disambiguators like orchid/fern/grass/etc. give quite a bit of information about the article subject, but detract from consistency in article titles. Should (plant) be suggested as the default disambiguator? It's presently the most widely used. Other terms might be appropriate on a case by case basis (e.g. the subjects of ], ], and ] can't be effectively disambiguated with (plant)). ] (]) 17:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


I'm a little surprised by this as I'd have expected them to use the same database. While I assume this is temporary, I thought I'd mention it here so people are aware there may be different treatments on the two sites. The Wikidata ID item was changed to link to WFO List (by one of the WFO list team) and now the links in the {{tl|taxonbar}} now go there rather than the more general site, which also has distributions and other biological information. The two sites have links to each other but the link from WFO Plant List to WFO is not obvious. I wonder if the taxonbar should be modified to show both links. &nbsp;—&nbsp;<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> ] &#124;]&nbsp;</span> 11:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:This was discussed before, I can't remember exactly when but perhaps a couple of years ago, and the result was lack of clear agreement, though people's positions may have changed since then. An additional problem with "(genus)" is that it's verging on natural sciences jargon, and general readers may not know what it means. ] (]) 19:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
: A problem with using WFO List in the taxonbar is that it redirects to the accepted name. So for the family example in the next section, Viburnaceae and Adoxaceae, both WFO links go the WFO List page for Viburnaceae. &nbsp;—&nbsp;<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> ] &#124;]&nbsp;</span> 11:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:There was a brief discussion touching on this question ]. ] (]) 19:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


== Viburnaceae vs. Adoxaceae ==
::I would always favour using "genus" as the primary disambiguator (but obviously not when the name also exists under other codes). I'm not sure how widely it would be seen as jargon, but it's a concept that cannot be comfortably expressed in any other words. It is the disambiguator that requires the least amount of prior knowledge on the part of a seeker, which ought to be one of the main criteria. I may know that there is a genus called ''Lotus'', but I may not know what sort of organism – or I might know that it's a plant but not know what sort of plant. (Even if I knew the family, would it be "''Lotus'' (legume)", "''Lotus'' (Leguminosae)", "''Lotus'' (Fabaceae)", "''Lotus'' (Papilionaceae)" or something else? I shouldn't have to know Misplaced Pages's conventions to find the article.) Using something like "(orchid)" therefore seems extremely unhelpful: it may well be that I'm looking the subject up to find out what it is, so the disambiguation shouldn't expect me to know beforehand.
::] gives a few examples, none of which is exactly analogous with this situation, but I think we can draw some conclusions. It recommends using "the generic class", with the implication (in my mind at least) that the ''most'' generic class (where reasonable) should be used. The article on the element mercury is at ], not ]; similarly, I would argue we should have the article at "Xxxx (genus)", not "Xxxx (orchid)" or "Xxxx (plant)". --] (]) 19:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
:::The problem with "(genus)" is that it can't be used consistently (because of the cases where there is an animal genus). This makes it not comparable to "(element)", it seems to me. The ''most'' generic class which achieves the necessary disambiguation is surely "(plant)"? ] (]) 19:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
::::I found the discussion from a couple of years ago (though there may have been others) - it's ]. ] (]) 20:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for digging up the previous threads. I did a quick check of the (genus)/(plant) articles starting with "A". 22 of 42 "A" (plant) articles have a corresponding article at ]. I checked GBIF and WoRMS (the single largest animal database I'm aware of, but far from comprehensive) for animal genera sharing a name with the plant "A" (genus) articles. 9 of the 18 plant "A" (genus) articles are homonyms with an animal genus!!! Granted, some of the animal genera are obscure synonyms, and unlikely to have a Misplaced Pages article, but there is still potential ambiguity. From my quick check, a minimum of 31/60 ambiguous plant genera starting with "A" would NOT be adequately disambiguated by (genus). ] (]) 21:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::I've now checked all the "A" (plant) pages against GBIF & WoRMS. 22 already disambiguate a plant and animal genus at the base title. 14 more share a name with an animal genus (but the animal genus isn't yet on Misplaced Pages). Of the 60 genus names I've checked, only 15 are unique to the plant kingdom. Depending on whether all the animal genera (including redirecting synonyms) are added to Misplaced Pages, 22-45 of the 60 pages I've checked require a dab term other than (genus). Only 1 of the 60 pages (]) doesn't work with a dab term of (plant). ] (]) 22:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


I see that PoWO, WFO, APweb, etc. now treat Adoxaceae as a synonym of Viburnaceae rather than vice versa. IPNI says that both are "nom. cons." Searching the appendices of the current ICNafp doesn't produce a new recommendation that I can find. Anyone know what is going on? Do we need to update our articles? ] (]) 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
== '']'' ==


:There was a proposal to conserve Adoxaceae against Viburnaceae (). It failed (vote reported ). The Smithsonian has a site that used to be called "Proposals and Disposals" (and that's still what I search for to get there). It's ; be sure to set the radio button at the bottom to "Proposals/Requests" and then search for Adoxaceae to get a record with various articles in Taxon about this proposal (there are 3 more besides the two I've linked above; I haven't looked at them, but I doubt there is much more relevant detail). ] (]) 19:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The distribution information needs to be fixed - this seems to be a tropical east Asian plant (fide Flora of China), but naturalised elsewhere in the tropics. I suspect that is naturalised, not native, in Mauritius. ] (]) 13:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


::Yes, I'd found those proposals, but was puzzled as to why the majority of taxonomic databases aren't following the rejection, although some do (follow the links in the taxonbar at ]). says "General Committee failed to reach decision on first try", so I wondered if there had been a more recent second try, but it appears not. So it seems that regardless of PoWO, WFO, APweb, GRIN, APC, etc. we should continue to use Adoxaceae, as do GBIF, ITIS, and NCBI. ] (]) 09:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:I have recently come across a couple of other articles created by the same editor with similar errors in the distributions – in my cases species introduced to North America being described as native there, and ignoring their wide Eurasian native ranges. It's probably not wrong to say that "''Sigesbeckia orientalis'' is found in Mauritius", but it does rather imply that that's its entire native range, which is not the case. (You were right; GRIN considers it to be introduced to Mauritius.) --] (]) 13:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
::: I struggle to understand these debates, but my interpretations is that POWO, WFO and APWeb using Viburnaceae is following the results of the proposals. In Proposal 1800, Viburnaceae was conserved over Tinaceae (presumably that passed). Then Proposal 1801 considered conserving Adoxaceae over Viburnaceae, which failed to pass, so Viburnaceae becomes the favoured name. In the event of 1801 failing, Proposal 1802 would consider using Sambucaceae over both, but it seems 1801 hasn't failed yet, it just didn't pass on the first try. &nbsp;—&nbsp;<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> ] &#124;]&nbsp;</span> 10:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The quote from TROPICOS refers to what happened before the General committee voted to reject the conservation as set out in the 2016 report, so that vote was the second try, that's why it says in TROPICOS "From Proposals/Requests (accessed 5 Mar 2021):...." ] (]) 20:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I tend to think that PoWO, WFO, APweb, etc., have already done this analysis, and we should follow what they have done and change to Viburnaceae. – ] <small>(tag or ping me) (])</small> 22:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
The had this to say:
<blockquote>"Recently the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants (NCVP) has approved the conservation of Viburnaceae (Applequist, 2013), thus proposing it be the correct name for Adoxaceae sensu APG. This outcome was contrary to the intention of the original proposal (Reveal, 2008), which aimed to maintain nomenclatural stability. We therefore do not accept this decision of the NCVP in the hope that the General Committee will not approve it in its report to the next botanical congress (cf. Applequist, 2013)."</blockquote>
I'd guess APG V will use Viburnaceae and that PoWO, WFO and APweb are party to that decision. &nbsp;—&nbsp;<span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> ] &#124;]&nbsp;</span> 10:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


:This is not meant to be sarcastic, but if we just do nothing fo a while, it will probably be settled back to Adoxaceae before we get to it. – ] <small>(tag or ping me) (])</small> 10:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
== Wikispecies ==
:There have already been 2 botanical congresses since 2013, so clearly this was approved, otherwise it would not be in the appendices. ] (]) 16:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


== Geographic tree category discussion ==
Just a heads up notification that, on Wikispecies, User:Stho002 has unilaterally revised the higher classification of plants. He has not been open to discussing these changes, and blocked me (I'm an admin there) when I tried to intervene and requested that he discuss the changes.
: ''As far as I can see, Stho002 blocked EncycloPetey, for one week, upgraded from a lesser block, for ignoring repeated requests to hold back and actually let Stho002 fix a specific problem that EncycloPetey has alerted him to, without reverting him at every stage. EncycloPetey is also an admin, and immediately unblocked himself/herself from the lesser block, only to revert Sthoo2 again and be blocked for longer. EncycloPetey did have the option of complaining to a beaureacrat or steward if he/she considered the block to be an abuse of Stho002's admin powers, but no such action appears to have been taken, or if it was, it was ineffectual ... ] (]) 20:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)''
Among the difficulties created:
* "Plantae" on Wikispecies includes the red algae
* "Bryophyta" on Wikispecies is now paraphyletic with the liverworts and hornworts included); this choice appears to be largely based on a single 2011 paper that included only 5 bryophyte taxa in the analysis.
:''As far as I can see, the paraphyly of Bryophyta is entirely unsettled and disputed in the literature. Not only is monophyly supported by this recent paper: ''
:''* Shanker, A.; Sharma, V.; Daniell, H. 2011: Phylogenomic evidence of bryophytes’ monophyly using complete and incomplete data sets from chloroplast proteomes. Journal of plant biochemistry and biotechnology, 20(2): 288-292. doi: 10.1007/s13562-011-0054-5<br>''
:''but it is also treated as monophyletic in this recent publication: ''
:''* Gordon, D.P. (ed.) 2012: New Zealand inventory of biodiversity. Volume 3. Kingdoms Bacteria, Protozoa, Chromista, Plantae, Fungi. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch, New Zealand. ISBN 978-1-92714505-0<br>''
:''In fact, Stho002 has followed this book for most if not all of the plant classification. The book was written by the professional botanical community of New Zealand, with input from specialists overseas, led by the botanists of Landcare Research Ltd. (a Crown Research Institute). Does EncycloPetey think that he/she knows better?? ...] (]) 20:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)''
* the pteridosperms are not part of "phylum Tracheophyta"
* "angiosperms" is unranked, but redirects to "Magnoliopsida", ranked as a class including all angiosperm orders.


I recently noticed the ] that was missed in the ]. I'm posting here to get the views of other plant editors. The discussion is at ]. ] (]) 00:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The irony is that Stho002 insists that all classifications must be Linnaean, but he has replaced a plant classification system that ''was'' Linnaean (and used monophyletic groups) with one that is ''non''-Linnaean and includes paraphyletic groups. I'm given up hope at Wikispecies, as Stho002 has become a monarchial dictator over the past few years, and brooks no debate. (my opinion) The rest of the community turns a blind eye to the changes, and focusses on parochial classification.
:] seems to have also survived. (Still blue linked on the original discussion.) ] (]) 18:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm going to have to try again next year on this since it closed. I missed a lot of categories as well, so in a way just as well. I'll make a more complete list and actually be organized about letting the plant project know next time.
::] (]) 19:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


==Proposed merge of "Category:Flora" into "Category:Plants"==
Just letting the community know of the difficulty, because this affects inter-project linking. --] (]) 23:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see ] for a proposal to merge ] into ]. (I'm strongly opposed.) ] (]) 16:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== Proposed merge of ] and ] ==
:I first got involved editing Wikis at Wikispecies. My contributions trailed off before User:Stho002 was involved, bI've checked back in a few time in recent years. I'm appalled at how it's become a personal fiefdom, with consensus almost solely determined by one person. Dissent is handled by abuse of admin tools. Apparently if I want to contribute over there, I've got to figure out the right way of doings things via telepathy. If I do something the wrong way, I might end up blocked, but the vague style guidelines on the Help pages have barely changed in the last 5 years. ] (]) 04:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


A ] to merge these two articles has reached an impasse since we aren't sure what to do here. A solution from someone knowledgeable will be appreciated. Thanks. -] (]) 06:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:I was a full time editor there for a number of years, working on the fossil taxa. I ran afoul of Stho002 soon after he was granted admin status when I contested some of his revisions. Failry soon after that I was temporarily banned. After that point I watched his power grow and decided to move back to working on full articles here. I really wish there was some way to have his tools revoked for destruction of the project there. As a note, he tried to edit here for a little while, and ended up getting banned for the same behavior.--]] ] 07:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


== Translating Latin, and using JSTOR:Global Plants description ==
::I have heard nothing good about Wikispecies for some time now, probably since about the time Stho002 became king. I also have reservations (to put it mildly) about Stho002, since it was an interaction between him and myself that resulted in his indefinite block here (although he continues to add links to Wikispecies under a series of alternative accounts without, thus far, getting into mischief). It does seem that the Wikispecies project is being damaged by the presence of Stho002, but I can't think of any solutions to that problem. If we considered it a sufficiently serious failing, one step we could take (probably after agreeing it at a wider forum than this), would be to stop adding links to Wikispecies and to remove those that are present (they're almost all made through templates, so that could be easily achieved). ] suggests we include links to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." One might argue that Wikispecies had ceased to be "neutral and accurate". Certainly we can question the addition of individual Wikispecies links; not all are helpful. Note that links to Wikimedia sister projects are only "links to be considered", rather than ones that "can normally be linked" according to WP:EL. We are not obliged to link to them. --] (]) 07:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
:::*'''Support''' link removal - Interesting discussion about something that I hadn't personally encountered. The whole idea of wikispecies is arguably useless. It isn't the sort of system that would make a tool for taxonomists, namely one that can handle many different classifications and be used as a workbench for developing a classification. In its present form, it seems to add nothing but an interlingual version of what the wikipedias could provide. I've added quite a few links to wikispecies when I've added links to commons galleries, but will stop doing that. ] (]) 14:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
:::*'''Support''' link removal. I can't see the point of Wikispecies in its present form. Even if there weren't problems with dictatorial editors, it simply doesn't offer the possibility of a nuanced discussion of alternative classifications which can be achieved in the more extensive articles of the various language Wikipedias. Inter-language links are best handled by Wikidata, I suspect, although there appear to be problematic editors who are blocked here editing over there as well. Sigh... ] (]) 18:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
:::*'''Support''' I have been tempted to remove the links from articles I edited/created for some time now. Given the very tenuous nature of WS as a source and the highly destructive nature of hte current autocrat, I'm going ahead with removal of the links.--]] ] 03:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages can focus on the endless inconclusive debates of higher classification, while Wikispecies can choose one classification on pragmatic grounds, and focus instead on the nomenclature and bibliography of the individual species, which is what it was designed to do ... ] (]) 20:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
::::Possibly have a check-user run on this account, as sockpuppetry is against policy.--]] ] 03:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::It would be stale. I don't think there's much question about the identity, but if we're having a semi-constructive dialog, I don't see the point in slamming the door just now. ] (]) 03:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
::::::Kevmin has started removing interwikis for no good reason, which I consider to be tantamount to vandalism (stated reason is erroneous, Wikispecies is no more a POV site than Misplaced Pages). I shall revert ...] (]) 03:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
:Wikispecies was created to divert the energy of the TOL people, to stop them from creating "a million" species articles here (''Look! Shiny!''). We ignored that attempt, and built a huge collect of quality articles over here. I've never seen the point of that project. ] (]) 03:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
::Nevertheless, Wikispecies currently has a very large amount of useful content that Misplaced Pages lacks. The two projects ought to focus on their own particular strengths and WP editors ought to stop being so territorial ... ] (]) 03:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


Good day everyone!
As a note Sthoo2/RealityCzecker has not opened a complaint against me at ] over the removal of ws links.--]] ] 03:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


In an article (''Bidens acuticaulis'') that I am drafting, one of the sources () I am considering using as a reference has the species description entirely in Latin. For people who don't know any Latin, can the text from an online translator (such as Google Translate) be used? If not, is there a way for someone (who doesn't know Latin) to ''reliably'' translate botanical Latin into English?
:Stephen, two points. First, on the specific set of changes to plant classification. I'm as aware as anyone that top-level phylogeny is an ambiguous mess (try explaining "protists" to a general biology class these days), but as a pragmatic question, having radically different classifications between Wikispecies and en.Misplaced Pages has the potentially to make those links something of an attractive nuisance here, if people wander in and try to change our taxonomy to that of Wikispecies. Since the taxonomic navigation is all template-driven, I'm not quite sure I see how having a shifting top-level phylogeny threatens species-level classification at Wikispecies, or precisely what the virtue of the new classification over the old is. With respect to Gordon and associates, if they, like Wikispecies, are principally concerned with alpha taxonomy, their choice of higher-level taxonomy may reflect convenience over accuracy. (I have the impression that this was a fairly common response to the unsettled conditions which prevailed until recently in the suprageneric classifications in monilophytes, for instance.) In any case, the rationale for the changes seems a little unclear to me here, and I don't see any announcement on the Village Pump at Wikispecies.


And on an unrelated note, can the species descriptions at be cited as a reliable source in a Misplaced Pages Article?
:Second, as regards governance in general. The principle "no man shall be a judge in his own case" long predates en.Misplaced Pages, so when I say it's odd to be blocking someone to settle your dispute, I don't think that's just a quirk of Wikipedian culture. It might be wise to consider a less arbitrary mode of operations on Wikispecies. I realize it's undoubtedly convenient to be able to make sweeping changes without having to engage in elaborate processes of consultation, but it's very discouraging to editors to be subjected to them without forewarning or clear rationale (see Plantdrew's comment above), and the deterrent effect on volunteer work probably exceeds your own savings in time. ] (]) 04:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
] (]) 16:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


:Modern Latin exists in a number of forms, of which Botanical Latin is one. A pitfall to watch out for is words that have a specialised meaning in Botanical Latin; Google Translate might use the more widespread sense instead, though nowadays it tends to pick the right one for the context. It may also be spooked by OCR errors in the text. In this instance Google Translate does a pretty good job - probably better than I could do with the assistance of no more than a dictionary. ''remote'' is botanical jargon, but its meaning in this passage is unclear, and I'd want to look at other descriptions to clarify. I'd use bracts or phyllaries rather than ''scales''; I was unclear what ''paleae'' denotes in this context - ] indicates that they are receptacular bracts (which is what I suspected, and which I've seen called scales in other descriptions of composites). ''bi-aristed'' would normally be biaristose, but "with two awns" would be clearer. ''diaphanous'' would normally be scarious or membranous (and there's not enough context to tell which was intended). ''petiole attached 1-4 cm. long'' looks wrong, especially as the petiole length is given later; I guess that this should be "1-4cm long including petiole". (This review should give you some idea of the quality of the translation).
== Redirection removal proposal ==
:If you haven't already looked at ] (not relevant in this instance) and ] you should probably do so - I believe that tight translations fall within the scope of plagiarism. That plant descriptions are rather stereotyped is a problem, as it makes it hard to rewrite in your own words. Outside Misplaced Pages I've written descriptions from photographs/drawings/specimens and then supplemented that with other descriptions, but within Misplaced Pages that is contrary to ].
:In this instance, POWO has . ] (]) 17:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Google Translate generally does okay with Latin (I often use it with minimal issues), but as {{u|Lavateraguy}} says, botanical Latin is a bit special and sometimes confuses the translator. I would suggest using Google Translate while checking over the original text with a botanical Latin glossary - the Missouri Botanic Garden has one , though it is not quite finished, so you may have to resort to googling some words. Honestly, botanical Latin is fairly intuitive and you will start to develop an understanding as you read more of it. If there's any particular words or phrases you're unsure about, feel free to ask about it here! And, as Lavateraguy says, try to avoid just directly translating the Latin description - I recommend writing descriptions in full sentences (eg. "The petals measure approximately 5mm by 5mm and are white with pink dots" as opposed to "petals white with pink dots, ca. 5mm x 5mm") at the very least.
:When it comes to your question about JSTOR, yes, I would say JSTOR entries are generally reliable, but check the original source to be sure. I would suggest citing the original text that JSTOR draws from and linking to the JSTOR entry in your citation with the |url and |via parameters in ] or ]. Aggregators like JSTOR are extremely useful, but the original authors of the text should be credited - the JSTOR citations can be a little odd, so you may need to do a little research to get all the information for a citation. For example, draws from "Flora of Tropical East Africa, Part Part 3, page 547, (2005) Author: H. Beentje, C. Jeffrey & D.J.N. Hind", which you could cite as:
:*{{cite book |first1=H. |last1=Beentje |first2=C. |last2=Jeffrey |first3=D.J.N. |last3=Hind |year=2005 |title=Compositae (Part 3) |series=Flora of Tropical East Africa |page=547 |publisher=] |isbn=9781842461068 |via=] |url=https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.flora.ftea006663?searchUri=filter%3Dname%26so%3Dps_group_by_genus_species%2Basc%26Query%3Dbidens%2Bacuticaulis}}
:] 🌿 (] &#124; ]) 01:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== Need help with banana tree ==
I would like to suggest that the redirection of ''Ligusticum lucidum'' to ] should be removed. As you can see on EOL’s website, the species is not a synonym of . Only the subspecies ''Ligusticum lucidum'' ssp. ''huteri'' is a synonym of ''Ligusticum huteri''.--Laia-M. 09:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:{{Done}}. --] (]) 09:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC) ] ] (]) 07:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:42, 9 January 2025

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

WikiProject Plants

 Main page Talk Taxon template Botanist template Resources Events Requests New articles Index 
WikiProject Plants was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 17 December 2007.
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPlants
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
WikiProject Plants Discussion Navigation
Shortcut: WT:PLANTS
Archiving icon
Archives since 2011

54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63
64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73
74, 75, 76, 77, 78


This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Is World of Succulents a reliable source?

Hi, noticed some red links and am thinking of helping the project by creating new articles. Looked up the sources guide in the main part of the project page and didn't find anything under keyword searches for cactus, cacti, or succulents. Please provide pointers if I've overlooked something. One of the most readily available online references on the topic is the World of Succulents website. Would you regard it as an adequate source? Baresbran (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't find authorship information for the articles there (and the first article I clicked seemed to have been lifted wholesale from gardeningknowhow.com, obligingly linked). I get the strong impression that this is some kind of content aggregation setup and probably not reliable for our purposes. The relevant project sources are probably floras of particular regions (i.e., South Africa), which may explain why your sources on particular groups of plants didn't turn up anything. Choess (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. That's not unexpected. Appreciate your reply. Baresbran (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
If you're a cactus and succulent enthusiast, and you have printed books on the topic, adding material sourced to those would be extremely valuable to the encyclopedia—we all have a tendency to pick low-hanging fruit (e.g., online sources). A lot of it is old out-of-copyright material, but Biodiversity Heritage Library is also a good place to look for material of interest. Choess (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Biodiversity Heritage is great, but you are right that it is mostly old out of copyright stuff. I find getting an account at archive.org and searching their book catalog for species names to be a fairly useful technique. As a succulent example if I put in "Sedum lanceolatum" as a search in the book contents I get a lot of results. Government reports, old journals (the same ones from biodiversity heritage), and also many recent books. Wildflower guide books, gardening books, natural history books, etc. Here is an intersting one from my example search Sedum : Cultivated Stonecrops by Stephenson published Timber Press. Seems like a good reliable source. Hurm. And the article for that stonecrop is rather light... I might have the next thing to work on. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Much obliged for the suggestions. Baresbran (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Firstly, Baresbran, I see that you're new to Misplaced Pages: welcome!
I would concur with Choess - while I don't see any particularly problematic information, the lack of authorship information is a big red flag. Best to avoid using that site and, on articles where it used as a reference, replace it with a higher quality source.
For what it's worth, the excellent Illustated Handbook of Succulent Plants series is accessible through WP:TWL - this requires a 6 month old account and at least 500 edits, though I believe you can apply to access specific materials before those milestones. If you'd like any help finding more sources on succulents I would be happy to assist :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good. Have been checking proposed edits by running keyword searches on Google Scholar, so far. Baresbran (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Submitted proposed article

Have started going through redlinks at List of Agave species, starting stub articles where reliable sources can be found. The first submission is waiting for review as Draft:Agave_abisaii. Baresbran (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Flora without expected TNC conservation status

My apologies if this is something dreadfully obvious - I'm a new editor, so I'm just double-checking

Once a TNC conservation status is added to an article in Category:Flora without expected TNC conservation status, is it acceptable to remove the category tag from the article? Cayuga3 (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. And thanks for doing the work. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

World Flora Online

The December update has been made on WFO Plant List and I've noticed that the updates haven't appeared in main WFO site. I was comparing Dicranella as treated by Bryonames and WFO. Dicranella rufipes (Müll. Hal.) Kindb. is (still?) recognised as a species by WFO, but no longer by Bryonames or, with the December update, by WFO List which have it as a synonym of Aongstroemia campylophylla (Taylor) Müll.Hal..

I'm a little surprised by this as I'd have expected them to use the same database. While I assume this is temporary, I thought I'd mention it here so people are aware there may be different treatments on the two sites. The Wikidata ID item was changed to link to WFO List (by one of the WFO list team) and now the links in the {{taxonbar}} now go there rather than the more general site, which also has distributions and other biological information. The two sites have links to each other but the link from WFO Plant List to WFO is not obvious. I wonder if the taxonbar should be modified to show both links.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

A problem with using WFO List in the taxonbar is that it redirects to the accepted name. So for the family example in the next section, Viburnaceae and Adoxaceae, both WFO links go the WFO List page for Viburnaceae.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Viburnaceae vs. Adoxaceae

I see that PoWO, WFO, APweb, etc. now treat Adoxaceae as a synonym of Viburnaceae rather than vice versa. IPNI says that both are "nom. cons." Searching the appendices of the current ICNafp doesn't produce a new recommendation that I can find. Anyone know what is going on? Do we need to update our articles? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

There was a proposal to conserve Adoxaceae against Viburnaceae (). It failed (vote reported here). The Smithsonian has a site that used to be called "Proposals and Disposals" (and that's still what I search for to get there). It's here; be sure to set the radio button at the bottom to "Proposals/Requests" and then search for Adoxaceae to get a record with various articles in Taxon about this proposal (there are 3 more besides the two I've linked above; I haven't looked at them, but I doubt there is much more relevant detail). Plantdrew (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'd found those proposals, but was puzzled as to why the majority of taxonomic databases aren't following the rejection, although some do (follow the links in the taxonbar at Adoxaceae). Tropicos says "General Committee failed to reach decision on first try", so I wondered if there had been a more recent second try, but it appears not. So it seems that regardless of PoWO, WFO, APweb, GRIN, APC, etc. we should continue to use Adoxaceae, as do GBIF, ITIS, and NCBI. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I struggle to understand these debates, but my interpretations is that POWO, WFO and APWeb using Viburnaceae is following the results of the proposals. In Proposal 1800, Viburnaceae was conserved over Tinaceae (presumably that passed). Then Proposal 1801 considered conserving Adoxaceae over Viburnaceae, which failed to pass, so Viburnaceae becomes the favoured name. In the event of 1801 failing, Proposal 1802 would consider using Sambucaceae over both, but it seems 1801 hasn't failed yet, it just didn't pass on the first try.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The quote from TROPICOS refers to what happened before the General committee voted to reject the conservation as set out in the 2016 report, so that vote was the second try, that's why it says in TROPICOS "From Proposals/Requests (accessed 5 Mar 2021):...." Weepingraf (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I tend to think that PoWO, WFO, APweb, etc., have already done this analysis, and we should follow what they have done and change to Viburnaceae. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The APG IV (2016) update had this to say:

"Recently the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants (NCVP) has approved the conservation of Viburnaceae (Applequist, 2013), thus proposing it be the correct name for Adoxaceae sensu APG. This outcome was contrary to the intention of the original proposal (Reveal, 2008), which aimed to maintain nomenclatural stability. We therefore do not accept this decision of the NCVP in the hope that the General Committee will not approve it in its report to the next botanical congress (cf. Applequist, 2013)."

I'd guess APG V will use Viburnaceae and that PoWO, WFO and APweb are party to that decision.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not meant to be sarcastic, but if we just do nothing fo a while, it will probably be settled back to Adoxaceae before we get to it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
There have already been 2 botanical congresses since 2013, so clearly this was approved, otherwise it would not be in the appendices. Weepingraf (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Geographic tree category discussion

I recently noticed the Category:Trees of the Eastern United States that was missed in the previous merger of tree categories in November 2023. I'm posting here to get the views of other plant editors. The discussion is at here. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Trees of Alberta seems to have also survived. (Still blue linked on the original discussion.) Lavateraguy (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to have to try again next year on this since it closed. I missed a lot of categories as well, so in a way just as well. I'll make a more complete list and actually be organized about letting the plant project know next time.
🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of "Category:Flora" into "Category:Plants"

Please see Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Flora for a proposal to merge Category:Flora into Category:Plants. (I'm strongly opposed.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Hydnocarpus pentandrus and Hydnocarpus wightianus

A discussion to merge these two articles has reached an impasse since we aren't sure what to do here. A solution from someone knowledgeable will be appreciated. Thanks. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Translating Latin, and using JSTOR:Global Plants description

Good day everyone!

In an article (Bidens acuticaulis) that I am drafting, one of the sources (v.59 (1915) - Botanical gazette - Biodiversity Heritage Library) I am considering using as a reference has the species description entirely in Latin. For people who don't know any Latin, can the text from an online translator (such as Google Translate) be used? If not, is there a way for someone (who doesn't know Latin) to reliably translate botanical Latin into English?

And on an unrelated note, can the species descriptions at JSTOR:Global Plants be cited as a reliable source in a Misplaced Pages Article? Cayuga3 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Modern Latin exists in a number of forms, of which Botanical Latin is one. A pitfall to watch out for is words that have a specialised meaning in Botanical Latin; Google Translate might use the more widespread sense instead, though nowadays it tends to pick the right one for the context. It may also be spooked by OCR errors in the text. In this instance Google Translate does a pretty good job - probably better than I could do with the assistance of no more than a dictionary. remote is botanical jargon, but its meaning in this passage is unclear, and I'd want to look at other descriptions to clarify. I'd use bracts or phyllaries rather than scales; I was unclear what paleae denotes in this context - spikelet indicates that they are receptacular bracts (which is what I suspected, and which I've seen called scales in other descriptions of composites). bi-aristed would normally be biaristose, but "with two awns" would be clearer. diaphanous would normally be scarious or membranous (and there's not enough context to tell which was intended). petiole attached 1-4 cm. long looks wrong, especially as the petiole length is given later; I guess that this should be "1-4cm long including petiole". (This review should give you some idea of the quality of the translation).
If you haven't already looked at WP:COPYVIO (not relevant in this instance) and WP:PLAGIARISM you should probably do so - I believe that tight translations fall within the scope of plagiarism. That plant descriptions are rather stereotyped is a problem, as it makes it hard to rewrite in your own words. Outside Misplaced Pages I've written descriptions from photographs/drawings/specimens and then supplemented that with other descriptions, but within Misplaced Pages that is contrary to WP:NOR.
In this instance, POWO has English language descriptions from FTEA. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Google Translate generally does okay with Latin (I often use it with minimal issues), but as Lavateraguy says, botanical Latin is a bit special and sometimes confuses the translator. I would suggest using Google Translate while checking over the original text with a botanical Latin glossary - the Missouri Botanic Garden has one here, though it is not quite finished, so you may have to resort to googling some words. Honestly, botanical Latin is fairly intuitive and you will start to develop an understanding as you read more of it. If there's any particular words or phrases you're unsure about, feel free to ask about it here! And, as Lavateraguy says, try to avoid just directly translating the Latin description - I recommend writing descriptions in full sentences (eg. "The petals measure approximately 5mm by 5mm and are white with pink dots" as opposed to "petals white with pink dots, ca. 5mm x 5mm") at the very least.
When it comes to your question about JSTOR, yes, I would say JSTOR entries are generally reliable, but check the original source to be sure. I would suggest citing the original text that JSTOR draws from and linking to the JSTOR entry in your citation with the |url and |via parameters in Template:Cite book or Template:Cite journal. Aggregators like JSTOR are extremely useful, but the original authors of the text should be credited - the JSTOR citations can be a little odd, so you may need to do a little research to get all the information for a citation. For example, this entry draws from "Flora of Tropical East Africa, Part Part 3, page 547, (2005) Author: H. Beentje, C. Jeffrey & D.J.N. Hind", which you could cite as:
Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Need help with banana tree

Template:Did you know nominations/Madagascar banana Chidgk1 (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: