Template:Did you know nominations/Equisetum similkamense

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 Desertarun (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Equisetum similkamense

(

)

illustrations of Equisetum similkamense fossils

... that John William Dawson didn't consider the rhizomes of Equisetum similkamense (pictured) globular enough for the fossils to be a different species? Source: Dawson (1879, 1890) commentary on the similarity to E. globulosum from Alaska

Reviewed: Brachysomophis cirrocheilos

Created/expanded by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 16:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - n - see below
Interesting: - n - see below

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: There are two concerns with this hook. First, hook's language is too specialized for the average reader to understand. Specifically, I don't know what "globular enough" means, or how it relates to determining a new species. Secondly, the history section has, as its second sentence, "These were examined and described by John William Dawson (1879) as a new species based on stems, leaves, and rhizomes." This tells me that Dawson examined the fossil as a new species, but this hook says Dawson originally thought it was not a new species. Normally I would suggest ALT hooks, but I am not confident enough in this subject area to create something. Can some new ALTs be proposed that have more simplified language? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Globular (as in blobby or round), since the rhizomes (fern "roots") were more cigar shaped in E. similkamense than ball shaped as in E. globulosum, Dawson didn't think the Alaskan fossils were the same species. I think the hook is very simple to be honest, it doesn't use ANY technical term besides rhizome (which I have now hyperlinked).--Kev min § 14:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, why do you have the article listed as failing the citations criteria?--Kev min § 14:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kevmin, I have a university degree (not in science or math) and I do not think I have heard the word "globular" before. Can this be changed to "round enough"? The citation concern was because I cannot find the hook's information in the article, therefore I do not know what reference verifies the information. Where is the hook's information in the article? Can you post the specific sentence that says Dawson did not think this was a new species? Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Globular is a fairly common term, to be honest, but spherical could be substituted if needed. Dawson named this species due to the fossils being different from those of the Alaskan fossil species E. globulosum (which was named later). Here is Dawsons commentary from the 1890 publication "It is Just possible that the fragments from Alaska noticed by Prof. Lesquereux in the report above referred to under the name Equisetum globulosum, may belong to the above species, but the material is not sufficient for comparison, and the root tubercles are more globular in form."--Kev min § 14:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kevmin: Thanks for providing the source. Here's an ALT1 hook:

ALT1: ... that John William Dawson didn't consider the rhizomes of Equisetum similkamense (pictured) spherical enough for the fossils to be a different species?

One final issue: Where in the Wikipedia article does it state the hook's information? Can you quote the sentence below? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: I still do not feel there is a need to change globular, to be frank, its a fairly common word. As for the hook in the article, its the last sentence of the second paragraph in the history and classification section, where E. globulosum is mentioned for the only time, its kinda hard to miss--Kev min § 15:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kevmin: I think I figured out why I couldn't find the hook's text in the article: the hook says that Dawson didn't consider E. similkamense as a different species, which implies that Dawson thought that the fossils he discovered were not a new species. However, the article and the source states that Dawson considered the possibility that E. similkamense was the same species as E. globulosum, but decided that he could not make this determination because he could not compare the two fossils. I think there's a significant different between these interpretations and I cannot approve ALT0 and ALT1 because of this. I have proposed some ALTs below that I think align with the article's text and the source:

ALT2: ... that upon its discovery, John William Dawson was unsure if Equisetum similkamense (pictured) was a different species?

ALT3: ... that upon its discovery, John William Dawson decided that Equisetum similkamense (pictured) was a different species because of the globose nature of its rhizomes?

ALT4: ... that upon its discovery, John William Dawson decided that Equisetum similkamense (pictured) was a different species because of the spherical nature of its rhizomes?

Please post the preferred ALT below, or if you propose an ALT hook. I will note your preference when this is approved. Z1720 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Taxonomic decision wise, there isn't a difference between my wording here and the wording in the articles. Also the alt's have the problem that when Dawson described E. similkamense, E. globulosum had NOT been described yet, so your wording tense is wrong. Keep in mind the original description for E. similkamense was 1879, while the comparison to E. globulosum was published in 1890, as that species wasn't named by Lesquereux until 1883

Alt3 and Alt4 are also factually wrong, as the species with the round rhizomes is E. globulosum NOT Equisetum similkamense.

@Z1720: I feel you are struggling with the subject matter a bit and think it may be time for a new reviewer.--Kev min § 14:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Nominator has requested a new reviewer. Z1720 (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kevmin: This article is new enough and long enough. The article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. I have spent quite a time considering the article and I don't think any of the current hooks is satisfactory. Dawson seems to have described it as a new species in 1877, but in 1890 wondered if E. globulosum was the same species. The introduction of E. globulosum into the hook only serves to add confusion. Could you suggest a new hook? What about the origin of the specific name, for example. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately Dawson did not give an etymology for the species name in any of his writings so there are no reliable sources that discuss it.--Kev min § 14:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you can suggest something else then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Alt5 ... that the fossil horsetail Equisetum similkamense (pictured) has been found in only two places, both in British Columbia?

We could go with the sparsity of the fossils as a hook.--Kev min § 20:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Approving Alt5, which I have reworded slightly to avoid ambiguity. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)