Jump to content

Talk:Vachellia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've just been given a small item made from a wood which I'm told is a rare wood called "purple gidgee", from Australia.

Google finds plenty of hits for this, including this one, which gives the botanical name as acacia crombi, and this, which calls it PINK or PURPLE GIDGEE (Acacia crombiei).

Does anybody have any better information? --peter_english (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acacia

[edit]
Acacia continues to be used on ground level, as in this article of January 2016.[1] JMK (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reliable source; it's a conservation blog rather than a peer-reviewed botanical article. -- 120.19.29.24 (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On Google Scholar, since 2012, there are 71 articles using Acacia (Vachellia), and 767 using Vachellia. -- 120.19.29.24 (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but this does not make sense. If Acacia has been split up and the African plants put in a separate genus Vachellia, (which certainly the South African SANBI Red List suggests [1] then the pages should not be merged, unless all the entries on the Acacia (Vachellia) page are actually Vachellia now.~Or let me rephrase this: have the Acacia species already been sorted out? Or does the Acacia (Vachellia) page still contain species that are not Vachellia in the new set up?

Jcwf (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Acacia (Vachellia) article only covers the 163 species that are in Vachellia in the new set up. The 1,100 or so other species of the old Acacia are on other pages, and the Acacia sensu lato page covers the group of former Acacia species as a whole. The editor that split up the old page did a pretty good job, on the whole (apart from having a nonstandard view about what the 5 new genera should be called).
To clarify, however, only about half the African plants are in Vachellia. The others are in Senegalia. -- 120.17.174.37 (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not all species pages have been moved. I've a list of pages that should be moved at User:Plantdrew/Acacia moves. Acacia senegal is listed at Acacia (Vachellia), but should be Senegalia senegal. Plantdrew (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The split of Acacia, however disturbing to those used to the traditional names, is now accepted by botanists, and we should complete the move of the relevant genera and species to the new names. The only issue I see is whether "Acacia" should be an SIA, with "Acacia (plant)", say, used for the genus, because for a long time to come there will be sources using "acacia" in English for the African species. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead: I have been reading and I think that the Acacia sensu lato page is best integrated in the History/Taxonomy section of the Acacia page - as we'd do with any genus that historically had a more generous circumscription than now. It has no validity now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than 2000 incoming links to Acacia. Leaving aside the links from Acacia species to the genus, the majority apply to the broader circumscription. I don't think getting rid of the Acacia s.l. page is the ideal solution, but I'm not very excited about fixing all the links that should point there myself. Plantdrew (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew: what if the "Acacia" page were an SIA? The links would go to the genera resulting from the split, plus (as per Casliber's suggestion) the Taxonomy section of what I would call "Acacia (plant)". Would this work? Then the 2000 incoming links could be sorted over time. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead: What would you do for these examples?
From Chad: "In the Sahel, a steppe of thorny bushes (mostly acacias)..."
From woodworking:: "Ancient Egyptians invented the art of veneering and used varnishes for finishing, though the composition of these varnishes is unknown. Although different native acacias were used..."
From tree of life: "They were said to have emerged from the acacia tree of Iusaaset, which the Egyptians considered the tree of life..."
In these cases, I think readers would best be served by arriving at the content currently present at Acacia sensu lato. Arriving at the taxonomy section of Acacia is likely to be bewildering. Changing the links to Vachellia and/or Senegalia might be appropriate, but involves some Original Research (I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for woodworkers and Egyptologists to update their sources to reflect the split of Acacia, though biogeographers in the Sahel probably will hop on board sooner or later). Leaving the links to point to a SIA for years (or likely decades, waiting for the Egyptologists) isn't optimal. I'm not sure about "Acacia (plant)"; it seems to be incomplete disambiguation to me as a SIA at the base title would also be about plants. Plantdrew (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I am persuaded about the need to have some sort of page at Acacia sensu lato for that reason. However I'd try to keep it as concise as possible to reflect the historical meaning and reasons for recalibration and try to remove much of it to specific genus articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew: ok, I take your point. @Casliber: the "Acacia sensu lato" page has to be called "Acacia" or to have a redirect from "Acacia" to deal with the problem Plantdrew identified, namely the large number of incoming links. So what will the article on the Acacia sensu stricto be called? Peter coxhead (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The choices are Acacia (genus) and Acacia (non-italicised and referring to old,broad usage), or Acacia and Acacia (plant) or Acacia sensu lato or something. My preference is the primary name is the current genus name as the most exacting as using Acacia for the old term is incorrect although popular...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: sorry, I don't quite understand your proposal above. My view now, based on Plantdrew's comments, is that we have to keep the old broad use at "Acacia", which can be unitalicized to show that it's now used as an English name, since otherwise all the incoming links need to be changed. Then the genus Acacia s.s. needs disambiguating, for which we now normally use "(plant)" – skim though the entries at Category:Angiosperm genera and its subcategories. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I'll be happy with the alternative you set out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead: My primary concern was preserving a page for Acacia s.l, as it's the most appropriate target for many links. I'm less sure about what should happen with the Acacia title. In an ideal world it'd be a DAB or SIA (which would include an item for Acacia s.l.), and all the incoming links would get fixed, but that's a tremendous amount of work. Moving Acacia s.l. back to the Acacia title (which is what I think you're suggesting) is a decent second option (none of the links are wrong, but many could be refined). Having Acacia s.s. at the base title leads to many wrong links. (plant) is the usual dab term, but I think (genus) is appropriate in the cases of Stevia/Stevia (genus), Asparagus/Asparagus (genus), and Vanilla/Vanilla (genus), where a natural product named for a genus is at the base title and (plant) remains ambiguous with the genus or the species that is the source of the natural product. If we treat acacia as an article scoped by a common name, I'd lean towards (genus) or "sensus stricto" as disambiguatory terms rather than (plant). Plantdrew (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree – yes, ideally and perhaps ultimately "Acacia" can be a DAB/SIA, but for now it's best used for the s.l./common name sense. You make a good case for a different disambiguator in this case, but "(plant)" please, not "(sensu stricto)". If no-one else shows up to dissent, the moves can be made in a day or two, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to have two pages, one called Acacia (Vachellia) and one called Vachellia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "SANBI Red List".

Merge proposal - "Acacia (Vachellia)" into "Vachellia"

[edit]

Please note that a merge proposal logged in May of this year might have slipped through the cracks. More than a mere merger, this would in fact eliminate a duplication of the content. At present Vachellia (the name to be kept according to the proponent) is a two-liner; the rest is made up of the infobox, list of species and sources. Thank you. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree/yes (thought we mentioned this above? Oh well...agree anyway) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Yes, that would helpfully get rid of some of the duplication. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree No need for duplication. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 08:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - it has been renamed and should be at Vachellia. StAnselm (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree This is a simple case of a duplicate page and Vachellia makes sense as the primary page. All the good info from this page should be moved over. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No Duplication is not the issue here, completely not. A confusion of issues is once again driving this in the wrong direction. Active wikipedians seem to favour Vachellia, but my experience is that there are enough persons outside wikipedia who are completely happy with Acacia. And so am I. Acacia (Vachellia) is already a concession, and page Vachellia can be redirected there (IF it is a synonym, of which I am not sure). JMK (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vachellia is not just a synonym of Vachellia, but actually the same species. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The original description of genus Vachellia in the Americas notes it as being very distinct from Acacia as it was then known. This can be further investigated. The recent ill-considered application of it to a wider group, which has a name, was done with as much consideration as this talk page discussion. So as originally conceived, it need not be synonymous. JMK (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move Finalized?

[edit]

Since there hasn't been much discussion on this in the last year and since the consensus favored merging the two articles, I went ahead and completed the merge. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final it is not. You just went ahead as before. I ask you publicly to stop these actions. The discussion consisted mostly of opinions, a good example of what is called the tyranny of small decisions. It bears no weight on the subject matter. JMK (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vachellia&oldid=1195087472"