Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

WikiProject Plants

Main page

Talk

Taxon template

Botanist template

Resources

Requests

New articles

Index

WikiProject Plants was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 17 December 2007.

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 6 sections are present.

Should these uncited articles be merged or deleted or cited or what?

I am not an expert.

Given that Flora of Turkey has further reading of Resimli Türkiye Florası do we actually need the uncited articles Flora of Turkey, Apocynaceae, Flora of Turkey, Betulaceae and Flora of Turkey, Fagaceae? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of inedible fruits for deletion

I have started a discussion about deleting List of inedible fruits. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jabuticaba

There is a request at Talk:Jabuticaba following on from a bit of edit warring and discussion in 2018 and 2019 to move the page either to Jaboticaba or to Plinia cauliflora. There are claims that the current spelling is unusual, rare in web searches, and not in line with Portuguese. Gbif calls it Brazillian grape tree. Janick & Paull call it Jaboticaba, GRIN common names list both spellings as Portuguese. Is there a wikiproject-plants policy to resolve this perhaps by resorting to that ancient tie-breaker, namely Latin? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't edit warring so much as a descriptionless rollback of an incomplete edit. I don't think this change would be controversial to anybody in English language circles, as it's pretty much only *because* Wikipedia comes first in search results that it's ever spelled "jabuticaba" here (almost all of cited pages calling it "jabuticaba" are either articles by laymen written several years after the Wikipedia article became prominent, or Brazilian/portuguese-language articles). Dictionaries and encyclopedias have been responsible for spelling changes over the years, but it doesn't need to happen here. Most physical dictionaries and even Wiktionary actually use the "o" spelling, Wikipedia is a very odd outlier. The page doesn't get high traffic from Wikipedians (there's a lot of spelling and phrasing and formatting and translation inconsistency on the page in general, for example there are multiple instances of "jaboticaba" already on the page), so it's unlikely that things will ever change without a push. There was no dissent or even further comment in the original discussion for five years straight. In any case, I support moving the page to Plinia cauliflora because "jaboticaba" is a term that is used for multiple species, like "fig", in the first place. 2600:100F:B1C5:C6B3:A113:6D12:8834:771C (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rughidia

Two species of genus Rughidia appear in the IUCN Red List, but neither the genus nor the species appear in Plants of the World Online or World Flora Online. Based on the GBIF occurrences, Rughidia cordatum may be a synonym of Peucedanum cordatum Balf.f. No idea about Rughidia milleri. Any insights? Tom Radulovich (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It seems that Rughidia and its species are not listed in POWO/WFO/IPNI (though Peucedanum cordatum is) because none of them have been validly published. They are listed in the World Plants checklist and in several papers on Apiaceae, with the ined. (meaning unpublished) qualifier. I haven't yet tracked down the paper that initially proposed these names (will edit this comment if I do), but this paper[1] from 2000 notes of R. cordata and R. milleri that "the name is not intended by the authors to be formally published in this paper; a formal description of this Socotran taxon is currently being prepared". It seems that no formal description was ever published, with articles as recent as this year[2] still noting that these names have not been validly published. Not quite sure where that leaves us, though... Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In our passes through Apiaceae while converting to automatic taxoboxes, Peter coxhead and I have intentionally left manual taxoboxes in place for these taxa (that is, we refrained from creating a probably unnecessary taxonomy template for Rughidia). Rughidia milleri at least should perhaps be deleted (along with a bunch of other articles created by Polbot for IUCN listed "species" that haven't been formally published). Plantdrew (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with deletion for the genus article and R. milleri, but would it be better for R. cordatum to be moved to Peucedanum cordatum or just deleted outright? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious. World Plants lists Rughidia cordatum (Balf.f.) M.F.Watson & E.L.Barclay; ined., but POWO accepts Dysphania incisa (Poir.) ined.. If ined. mean nomen ineditum and indicates an invalid name, why does POWO accept that one? Another question, if the description is published and meets the code, should a disclaimer matter in determining validity of the name? — Jts1882 | talk 07:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of "Dysphania incisa", POWO accepts only, that this species belongs to genus Dysphania. It was transferred to this genus as Dysphania graveolens (Lag. & Rodr.) Mosyakin & Clemants, but this name is a nom. illeg., and a replacement name has not yet been published [see https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dysphania_graveolens]. The oldest basionym would be Chenopodium incisum Poir., Encycl. [J. Lamarck & al.] Suppl. 1. 392 (1810). --Thiotrix (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. I moved Rughidia cordatum to Peucedanum cordatum, with the unpublished synonyms R. cordatum and R. cordata noted in the text. Not sure what to do with Rughidia or Rughidia milleri. Tom Radulovich (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catalog of Life gives the following:

Rughidia M. F. Watson & E. L. Barclay ined. is a provisionally accepted genus. https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/7B2L

Rughidia cordata (Balf. fil.) M. F. Watson & E. L. Barclay ined. is also provisionally accepted with synonym (and apparently supposedly basionym) Peucedanum cordatum Balf. fil., which is accepted in POWO. https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/6WXC7

Rughidia milleri M. F. Watson & E. L. Barclay ined. as provisionally accepted. https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/6X9BV

It is my understanding that we don't make or keep articles for the unaccepted, including provisionally accepted. Moving R. cordata appears to have been the right call, and I think the other two could be fast deleted. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for moving that one Tom. I went ahead and PRODed Rughidia and R. milleri, as I expect little disagreement, but if any dissenting opinions arise I'll move forward to AfD and go from there. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid articles

Could someone please direct me to either a Wikipedia policy or essay OR something in the Plants project that contains discussion about when to create an independent article for a nothospecies (hybrid)? I have read this more than once, may have saved the information, but I can't find it now. Thanks! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any existing guidelines or essays that specifically cover hybrids. The WP:NSPECIES proposal suggests that hybrids be presumed non-notable unless they meet WP:GNG, and while that guideline hasn't yet been adopted I think it's reflective of the general consensus on how hybrids should be handled. Is there a particular one you had in mind? I would be happy to help research and check for SIGCOV if you'd like. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for checking! Yes, actually, if you wouldn't mind. Take a look at the list in this article (Cirsium greimleri#Hybridisation). Cirsium greimleri was nominated as a candidate for GA, and I pulled it for review. It surprised me to see seven hybrid species articles listed here, Wikilinked and all very recently created (July 2024). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! I'll ping @Иованъ, as they are both the nominator for Cirsium greimleri and the creator of the various hybrid articles. Thanks for all your work on these articles!

Some of the hybrid articles (Cirsium × stroblii and Cirsium × sudae) don't appear to have SIGCOV, but others (eg. Cirsium × juratzkae and Cirsium × stiriacum) are more borderline - I would say there's enough literature to qualify as SIGCOV, but others may disagree, and I'm not exceedingly confident they would all survive AfD. I think there is more than enough to be said on the hybrids of C. greimleri to warrant more than just a mere list in the species article, but perhaps not enough to warrant individual articles for each hybrid - my gut instinct is to merge all of the hybrid articles into a collective article (Hybrids of Cirsium greimleri, perhaps?) and give each their own section. Currently, I think there is a non-negligible chance of at least some of these articles being taken to AfD and deleted or merged for failing GNG, but I don't want to see all this useful information (and hard work) go to waste. I think condensing all of the hybrid articles together and retaining their content is the best way of preserving the information without risking deletion, but that's just my opinion - curious to hear what others think on this. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking and for your input. What I did for List of Symphyotrichum species was include the hybrids there within their respective subgenera. That seemed to work out nicely. If the hybrid articles were to be deleted, the List of Cirsium species (which could use a lot of work) includes hybrids. Minimal information from any respective article could be added there. The hybrid article names could be made redirects. I'm not suggesting it be done that way. Expanding (and keeping current!) such a large list of species as is in Cirsium (lots of thistles!) and hybrid species would be quite the challenge. I'm curious about the policy, if any, of hybrid article creation in this project, whether or not we have ever had discussion about it, if something be written on the taxon template page about this, for example. When I did the Symphyotrichum list expansion in 2021, I was sure about this enough to place a footnote in the article that reads "Hybrids do not have their own articles.", not to state a policy internal to Wikipedia, but to let the reader know why they don't see a link to any hybrid articles. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having me.

Thanks for all your work on these articles! My pleasure! Though it pales in comparison.

I am more of a "lumper" than a "splitter". Case in point? List of Glagolitic manuscripts (1.3 MB). But I would contend that keeping nothospecies articles separate is more consistent with established practice here (Category:Plant nothospecies). Since nothospecies are also species, and feature extensively on "lists of species" from authoritative sources such as PoWO, it follows that the species-related policies also apply to nothospecies. But let us suppose "nothospecies" were determined by consensus to not be species. For individual "species" sensu stricto, it is not required that their articles reach a certain size before being split off from the article of their genus. Rather, in imitation of established practice in paper encyclopedias, they are allowed their own "stubby" articles, thereby averting endless split-merge disputes. To draw a parallel from Notability (geographic features), the current practice per WP:NTOWN is to allow standalone stubs for any "populated, legally recognized places" no matter how small, while keeping unofficial entities merged until they are long enough to stand alone. Since these hybrids with valid names are in question, the botanical equivalent of "unofficial" would be hybrids without such names, some of which are indeed notable enough thanks to high coverage per WP:GNG.

Outside of the context of Wikipedia, with all its technical limitations, the idea to merge all of the articles into a single "Genus nothospecies" article is a good one. Especially if the individual articles are not expected to expand much. The genus Cirsium is itself rather "borderline", however, as there are nearly as many nothospecies as there are species, so all but the most cursory coverage would result in a prohibitively long article. If you want to see what Cirsium greimleri looked like when hybrids were included, you can read the "Hybridisation" section of its first version. More was added, and more still could (and should) be added for all but the very rare Cirsium × stroblii and Cirsium × sudae as has been correctly noted. There is far more literature on most of these nothospecies than my small selection would suggest, especially in German and Russian. Most of the information contained in the Cirsium hybrid articles is from Public Domain works, but most of what has been written on them dates to a later period, so one can imagine what sort of articles could be produced we had more time (we also wrote but have not yet published Cirsium waldsteinii among others).

Most hybrid articles are short, but not a few are longer: Asplenium × boydstoniae, Asplenium × ebenoides, Asplenium × kentuckiense, Asplenium × trudellii, Asplenium × wherryi, Cornus × unalaschkensis, Crocosmia × crocosmiiflora, Eucalyptus × alpina, Eucalyptus × brachyphylla, Eucalyptus × lamprocalyx, Eucalyptus × stoataptera, Eucalyptus × balanites, Eucalyptus × balanopelex, Eucalyptus × chrysantha, Eucalyptus × kalangadooensis, Eucalyptus × missilis, Eucalyptus × phylacis, Grevillea × gaudichaudii, Karpatiosorbus houstoniae, Kniphofia × praecox, Lonicera × bella, Lysimachia × commixta, Lysimachia × producta, Myosotis × bollandica, Myosotis × cinerascens, Nuphar × saijoensis, Nuphar × spenneriana, Nymphaea × daubenyana, Nymphaea × thiona, Phalaenopsis × lotubela, Platanus × hispanica, Polygonatum × hybridum, Populus × jackii, Quercus × deamii, Richea × curtisiae, Sabal × brazoriensis, Salix × fragilis, Seringia × katatona, Spyridium × ramosissimum, Taxus × media, Tilia × europaea, Typha × glauca, Ulmus × arbuscula, Ulmus × diversifolia, Ulmus × intermedia, Vanilla × tahitensis, Veronica × lackschewitzii, Verticordia × eurardyensis, Yucca × schottii. Few botanists want to write such articles; fewer still know they can.

Regards, Ivan (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some of those articles, many/most are accepted by POWO ("[t]his hybrid is accepted"), which can be used to support having an article (as we do for plant species), specially as these articles aren't bare stubs. I did find one that isn't: Populus × jackii Sarg. ("This name is a synonym of Populus × ontariensis"), although it also had the comment "[T]his name was accepted following an alternative taxonomy by these authorities: <<8 references>>. The article Populus × jackii doesn't mention ontariensis. — Jts1882 | talk 15:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviews

Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Peer reviews active; do peer reviews still occur? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not since 2009. But you can informally request one on a user talk page. Ivan (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan, how did you know this so quickly? I couldn't find information about this, and that page makes it appear as though it is active. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subproject relied on requesting directly on that page. Most requests post-2009 come from student projects. See Talk:Fontainea venosa for user page request solution to subproject inactivity. Ivan (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it would be of value to resuscitate it. Thoughts, anyone? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly would be. Unfortunately, I don't have enough experience here to contribute. :-) Ivan (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]