Talk:Artemisia gmelinii

Regarding synonyms and subordinate taxa

I've just gone ahead and added the synonym and varieties recognised by Plants of the World Online[1] to this article, however, I have noticed a discrepancy between the synonyms and varieties recognised by POWO and those recognised by World Flora Online[2]: where POWO recognises only on synonym for A. gmelinii and the two varieties A. gmelinii var. gmelinii and A. gmelinii var. messerschmidiana, WFO recognises a far larger number of synonyms for A. gmelinii and the two varieties A. gmelinii var. incana and A. gmelinii var. messerschmidiana. The discrepancy in synonyms is likely largely (if not entirely) due to POWO considering most of the synonyms attributed by WFO to the species to instead be synonyms for one variety or the other, however, the discrepancy in varieties is more troublesome and I am unsure how to proceed.

Pinging @Internetfox, @LycheeDragonLover, and @Eucalyptusmint - as the major contributors to this article, how would you like to handle this? I lean towards following the classification set out by WFO, as it is almost certainly more recently reviewed than the POWO entry, but would be interested to get your opinions on this before making any changes. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ping me, but I'm following this page. POWO places all heterotypic synonyms of the species underneath the autonym now. For this species, the synonym list will need to be separated into several probably hideable lists of synonyms using the species list template, one for the main species and one for each infraspecies that has synonyms. Use the header parameter to set the infraspecies name for the list. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll find an example I did today. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't any particular expertise here, I just created the stub based on the POWO information. I defer to anyone who knows more! Internetfox (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ficus caulocarpa is one.

| synonyms_ref =  | synonyms = {{Species list | header = Species<ref name=powospecies/> | hidden=yes | Ficus infectoria var. caulocarpa | ([[Friedrich Anton Wilhelm Miquel|Miq.]]) [[George King (botanist)|King]] | Ficus virens var. caulocarpa | (Miq.) [[Marselein Rusario Almeida|M.R.Almeida]] | Urostigma caulocarpum | Miq. }} {{Species list | header = var. ''caulocarpa''<ref name=powoautonym>{{Cite POWO | last = POWO | date = 2024 | id = 77230365-1 | title = ''Ficus caulocarpa'' var. ''caulocarpa'' | access-date = 1 November 2024}}</ref> | hidden=yes | Ficus stipulosa | (Miq.) Miq. | Ficus weinlandii | [[Karl Moritz Schumann|K.Schum.]] | Urostigma stipulosum | Miq. }}

Place the citation at the end of the header string. The header does not appear if hidden is not set to yes. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, great idea! (I actually considered pinging you and Plantdrew for your expertise but didn't want to be a bother :P)

The only issue that remains is whose classification to follow regarding the varieties: POWO's A. gmelinii var. gmelinii and A. gmelinii var. messerschmidiana, or WFO's A. gmelinii var. incana and A. gmelinii var. messerschmidiana? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Oh, since it's a vascular plant, I think POWO is most appropriate. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to scroll down to near the bottom of the WFO entry to see the infraspecifics, but POWO and WFO completely disagree on one of the varieties. POWO lists the two varieties of A. gmelinii as A. gmelinii var. gmelinii and A. gmelinii var. messerschmidiana, but WFO lists A. gmelinii var. incana[3] (which POWO considers a synonym of Artemisia lancea[4]) and A. gmelinii var. messerschmidiana[5]. So A. gmelinii var. messerschmidiana seems uncontroversial, but I don't know whose taxonomy to follow for the other variety. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you are thinking that you might need to use a different website for a different variety? That would be combining circumscriptions, and that would be, to describe it simply, bad. Whatever source (circumscription) you use for the species should be used for the infraspecies. And since this is a vascular plant, I would use POWO. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, I definitely wasn't planning to "mix and match", I just wasn't sure which classification would be best to follow for the speciesbox. I'm happy to give POWO priority, but the differences in classification ought to be mentioned in the text. For what it's worth, World Plants agrees with WFO, and they seem (? hard to tell, given that POWO doesn't list when entries are created/changed, but WFO was last updated this June and World Plants was updated last month) to be the most recently reviewed classifications. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I think that somewhere on POWO's website is information about when the data is updated. That might be a good thing for us to know. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's some important reading: https://powo.science.kew.org/about – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that for this example, there is only one infraspecies given in the synonyms section because the other has no synonyms. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elizabeth (Eewilson) and Ethmostigmus, thanks for sharing your thoughts/expertise on this. I'm a bit delayed as am just now having some time to catch up on things here, so just wanted to confirm, that going forward we should use POWO (for vascular plants) and if there are differences between the various lists then that info should be mentioned in the article somewhere? Eucalyptusmint (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, although for some subgroups, like Australian plants, the editors may be using a different source – I am not certain. On the Stub to Start page, I listed the databases to use based on recent discussions on the plants project talk page that clarified it. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Stub to Start drive § Step 1: validate species name for the databases to use. These apply to not just validating the species but also the infraspecies and synonyms. I want to add something easy to find that is concise in the Plants project instructions, but I haven't yet. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]