Talk:Dolichostachys

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	It is requested that a range map be included in this article to improve its quality.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Africa: Madagascar Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Madagascar portal This article is supported by WikiProject Madagascar (assessed as Low-importance).
	It is requested that an image or images be included in this article to improve its quality.

A fact from Dolichostachys appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 November 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that although the plant species Dolichostachys elongata was first described in 1962, it was not considered validly published until 60 years later?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dolichostachys.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by JuniperChill talk 20:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that although the plant species Dolichostachys elongata was first described in 1962, it was not considered validly published until 60 years later?

Source: Manzitto-Tripp, Erin A.; Darbyshire, Iain; Daniel, Thomas F.; Kiel, Carrie A.; McDade, Lucinda A. (2022). "Revised classification of Acanthaceae and worldwide dichotomous keys". Taxon. 71 (1): 141–142. doi:10.1002/tax.12600.

ALT1: ... that failing to designate a type specimen can render a newly described species invalid, as in the case of Dolichostachys elongata? Source: Manzitto-Tripp, Erin A.; Darbyshire, Iain; Daniel, Thomas F.; Kiel, Carrie A.; McDade, Lucinda A. (2022). "Revised classification of Acanthaceae and worldwide dichotomous keys". Taxon. 71 (1): 141–142. doi:10.1002/tax.12600.
Reviewed:

5x expanded by Ethmostigmus (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk contribs) 07:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

This is a tidy article, which has recently been expanded 5x, is well sourced to accessible references and has no copyvio or other problems. QPQ is not required.

Of the two hooks, ALT1 is a little too technical and not sufficiently 'direct' to make a hook that works for me at least. The style of ALT0 does work, I think, and the source checks out: but is there a typo in the hook as written? From the references, the plant was collected in 1912, and described in 1962 (not 1862), so the precise wording of ALT0 needs some tweaking. Would ALT0 work as well if you only used the genus name? This should be a quick fix. @Ethmostigmus: Chaiten1 (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's an embarassing mistake on my part! No idea how I managed to miss the mark by a whole century. Thanks for catching that @Chaiten1:, should be fixed now. I would prefer to use the species name over the genus if possible: firstly, because the article is predominantly about the species, and secondly, because I think using the species name reads better and will make more sense to the average reader (most people understand what a species is, but don't know what a genus is), however, I completely understand if the species just isn't workable. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk contribs) 03:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed and good to go. ALT0 preferred! Chaiten1 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]