Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive15

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Articles for Deletion: Columbian Red

Currently being discussed, an old debate already re-listed once:

Columbian Red at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbian Red (13 September 2007 – 1 October 2007) No consensus

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to keep it, cultivars should go under the species if they are known. Some cultivars have very complex parentage and its imposable to place them under one species, but this is not true for pot plants, a nearly cosmopolitan "weed" species now. Hardyplants 19:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Cell wall

Just dropping a note to say that Cell wall is the Collaboration of the Month for the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. It's a B-Class in this wikiproject, too, and hopefully we can get both projects' members involved to improve the article. — Scientizzle 17:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added what I consider a nice little section on cell walls in the Archaea. --EncycloPetey 03:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Charophyta articles

Hi all,

I made my first Charophyta article today, on the class Mesostigmatophyceae. I'd be eager to hear your comments and corrections, as this will likely be a model for other charophytes. I also made a new template {{NCBI taxonomy}} that may be helpful in tagging/reforming my older taxonomic articles; suggestions there would also be very welcome! :) Willow 19:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. If anyone has the divisio authority for the Charophyta, that'd be great. AlgaeBase has only a vague, undated reference to Cavalier-Smith. Willow 19:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Plants don't require division authorities to have dates, the authority alone suffices. Are you saying you don't want to go with AlgaeBase and Cavalier-Smith in particular? AlgaeBase usually links to the specific article. KP Botany 19:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to it for an example. WP:TAXOBOX#Authorities KP Botany 19:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think dates are helpful, but only the topic related to the article needs the "authority" parameters in the taxobox. So I'd get rid of "domain_authority", "regnum_authority", and "divisio_authority" from the taxobox. --Rkitko ^(talk) 19:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dates are helpful, but we don't use them in the plant taxoboxes. They can be included in the reference, though. I did delete the higher level authorities. KP Botany 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I must have missed out on that since I use dates in all the articles I create. Is there a reason why? --Rkitko ^(talk) 20:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You put dates in the taxoboxes for authorities in plant articles? I had not noticed that. I think it has been discussed to death, Brya was all for it, but other editors decided not to, but maybe someone can give you a link. KP Botany 20:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I must have missed that conversation earlier. It might be worth revisiting because I see no good reason not to include the year for the citation in a taxobox. In written text I understand the convention not to include a date. See my comment below for more. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with KP and Rkitko: dates are not normally used in casual author citation, but it's a god idea to include them whenever homonyms (especially obscure ones) are discussed. Circeus 20:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I've got it: (1) list only the authority for the article's taxon, and (2) include no dates in the authority. Anything else? It would be also nice if someone could provide an authority reference for the Charophyta. Algaebase does not give a reference, merely "Charophyta Cavalier-Smith". Thanks for the quick responses! :) Willow 21:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Only include the authority for the taxon specifically discussed on that page. So the page on Charophyta gets the authority for the division; the page on Desmidiales gets the authority for that order; the page on Zygnemataceae gets the authority for that family; and so on. The higher taxa that have separate pages do not list the authorities for those taxa. Exceptions only occur for pages like Ginkgoaceae that have resulted from "merge" of all the taxa from division down to family.

Personally, I prefer to include dates for plant authorities, because there are so many synonyms out there. There are a number of liverwort examples for which the same taxon was circumscribed different ways by the same author on different dates. --EncycloPetey 21:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I use dates. I know that it's not normally a convention to use dates in text when speaking of a taxon and I assume that's where this idea to not use dates comes from. But in a taxobox I think it's extremely useful. I use it all the time, especially when dealing with so many synonyms. I've even come across an example where the same taxon was described in the same month of the same year by two different botanists (Stylidium androsaceum). So even though the author citation is enough to distinguish them in text, I feel that the including the year in the taxobox breaks no set convention. I find that including as much information in the taxoboxes is usually productive. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly seconded. I find dates very useful, particularly when dealing with many synonyms. Mgiganteus1 00:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, I think we all agree about which taxonomic level should list an authority. The dates issue might benefit from more discussion to reach consensus, though... ;) Perhaps the date is not needed if we include a reference to a specific (dated) publication in the scientific literature? Willow 22:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, do we agree that the date should be included in the taxobox authority? My sense is yes, and that's what I'll do, unless there are objections. Willow 20:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that taxoboxes look incredibly cluttered already. If the date is so important it can be linked to the authority via a reference, this keeps the taxobox neater. 4 people is hardly a consensus. I'm willing to change if we get more input, but let's get more input first. KP Botany 02:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll repeat the call below for more input on the date issue, and we can decide in, say, a week. Meanwhile, does anyone have a taxonomic authority for the Charophyta? Inquiring minds are inquiring. ;) Willow 10:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikispecies, its Rabenhorst 1863. However, I've noticed while looking around that no one is convinced the group is monophyletic, so most authors are still treating it as class Charophyceae within Chlorophyta. --EncycloPetey 13:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

References of use:- Moore, J.A. & Green, D.M. (1983) Provisional Atlas and Catalogue of British Museum (Natural History) specimens of the Characeae. Institute of Terrestial Ecology. Abbots Ripton.

Moore, J.A. (1986) Charophytes of Great Britain and Ireland. BSBI handbook no. 5.

Charophyta by O.Morton in The Flora of the North-east of Ireland. Hackney, P. (ed) 'Stewart and Corry's Flora of the North-east of Ireland. Institute of Irish Studies, The Queen's University of Befast. ISBN 0 85389 446 9 (HB)Osborne 16:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Physical descriptions often missing

At least some simple aspects of plant descriptions are missing from many articles on plants. I noticed this especially over the last few weeks as I have been adding more descriptive templates onto the bloom clock pages (the main problem at the moment is with alternate/opposite/whorled leaves). So, I was wondering if perhaps a small "enhancement project" could be undertaken adding these to both the wikipedia articles and to the bloom clock pages.

The bloom clock takes advantage of a certain MediaWiki feature (DynamicPageList) that is disabled on wikipedia (and wouldn't be helpful here anyway, because wikipedia articles don't use the kind of categories that the bloom clock does). Careful use of templates and categories not only allows us to create dichotomous keys (see this page for example), but we can also use DynamicPageList to track missing descriptors: see, e.g., v:Bloom_Clock/Keys/Southeastern_Pennsylvania/October/Maintenance. That page lists all plants that have not had either the leaf arrangement or leaf complexity defined.

In order for this to be helpful to maintaining Wikipedia, we could add a different series of categories. For example, a simple one like {{bcp/wpa}} could be used to track plants that have articles on wikipedia, and hence we could also track those that either don't have them, or just haven't been checked yet (using notcategory=BCP/Wikipedia article present in a DPL). For "up-to-date" maintenance, e.g., making sure that all wikipedia articles linked from the clock were checked in October 2007 to make sure the articles had all of the descriptive elements on the bloom clock page, we could use a template like {{bcp/wpa/2007/10}}, which could again carry a category and allow us to track progress using a DPL list.

The goal is to continuously develop the dichotomous key over time, and eventually have it possible to look up plants that don't have flowers or fruit present (see v:Bloom_Clock/Descriptions for a start on the rather daunting to-do list). It's going to be a lot of work going through floras to find all that data, and with well over 300 plants and counting, Wikiversity just doesn't have the critical mass of editors to make it possible. However, with the bloom clockers and WP:PLANTS folks working together, both the wikipedia articles and the bloom clock articles can be fixed up better.

Anyway, I hope the DPL stuff isn't too confusing. It just strikes me as a very effective way to create a "checklist" for wikipedia articles. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 14:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Currently, we have only 25,000 articles in our project. There are more than 300,000 species of living land plants, and that figure of 25,000 pages incudes articles on families, classes, anatomy, physiology, fossils, etc. In other words, we probably have less than 5% of the articles on species in existence, and most of those are currently stubs. For a significant fraction of those articles, there is little or no physical description because they were recently created by a 'bot from conservation data.

So... exactly how will your idea work? The Plants project covers algae, bryophytes, pteridophytes, and seed plants, both living and fossil. Are you proposing to create a dichotomous key for all photosynthetic life throughout the history of Earth, regardless of geography? What will you do for characteristics that do not apply at all to a significant fraction of species?

It sounds like you have your own independent project, since that would be well beyond the scope of what we can do. --EncycloPetey 15:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know the research aspect of the bloom clock would only be useful for vascular plants. Angiosperms are of course the most appropriate, but gymnosperms can also be counted as "blooming" when they release pollen. Ferns and mosses could certainly be tracked according to when they spore. I don't know about algae. The dichotomous key aspect, on the other hand, could certainly describe all of these.

It is, of course, and independent project. However, part of the Wikiversity mission is to serve its sister projects, including Wikipedia. In this particular case Wikiversity can offer the use of DPL, which the devs have said will never be allowed on wikipedia due to the stress it would cause to the servers. The bloom clock (thus far) only has pages about plants that were seen (and logged) by a particular contributor in a particular region at a particular time, so it's not an "exhaustive" to-do list, but it is a list of articles that will be looked at (for example, the bloom clock is used by at least one school here in PA, and the instructors follow the links to Wikipedia when a child has questions about a flower). Making sure there is a good description of a plant can also move an article that much closer to "good article" status, and having a to-do list of this sort can help focus our efforts.

So the idea would "work" by getting a few editors together and doing cross-project checking. So, for example, until a few minutes ago, v:BCP/Trifolium pratense appeared on this maintenance list, because it wasn't defined in regard to leaf arrangement. The Wikipedia article for Trifolium pratense didn't have that information either: and I solved that using the bloom clocker method of just going out to look :), but a Wikipedian could have done the same by looking it up in a flora and referencing it. So, I made this edit on Wikipedia, and [this edit on Wikiversity. When I made the wikiversity edit, the template added a category that removed that page from that maintenance list, which is what I mean by having a checklist: as soon as someone fixes the problem, it "automagically" disappears from the list. Do you see what I mean now? --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 16:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A new subproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plant Evo Devo

Hello everyone...I am a new project member here...I intend to start a new subproject in Wikiproject: Plants under the name of Plant Evo-Devo. There is scarce material available in this field on Wiki and whatever is available is scattered and incomplete. I have posted a short list of topics that I think are relevant, and EncycloPetey has made some additions too. It would be great to have you guys join in and suggest anything else, and we can get the project going! Gauravm1312 02:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Should/May a date be included in the taxobox authority?

A few of us have considered lately the question of whether the date should be included in the taxonomic authority in the taxobox, e.g., "Cavalier-Smith, 1982" as opposed to just "Cavalier-Smith". This may seem like a trivial format question, and perhaps it is. But the decision will be very difficult to change once it's percolated through tens of thousands of plant pages, so now is your opportunity to voice an opinion if you have strong feelings.

For clarification, the authority will generally have an inline footnote that includes the date. What we are discussing is whether to include the date in the taxobox itself, not whether it should be found anywhere in the article, such as in the References.

So far, five people have expressed an opinion on the issue, and their chief arguments are as follows (my apologies if I've misrepresented anyone's position!) Rkitko, EncycloPetey, and Mgiganteus1 favor including dates, mainly because they add information and distinguish synonyms. By contrast, KP Botany feels that dates should always be excluded, since they make the taxobox more "cluttered". Finally, Circeus seems to feel that they should be generally excluded, but included when there's a danger of confusion with homonyms.

Your opinions would be very welcome! Willow 11:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd favour only including author, e.g. L., unless a full citation is given, e.g. L., Sp. Pl. 2: 789 (1753). I think there is a good case for giving the full citation in all taxon pages, but I don't see any for giving the author plus date without the rest of the citation. - MPF 12:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we quote me accurately without my feelings? "I think that taxoboxes look incredibly cluttered already. If the date is so important it can be linked to the authority via a reference, this keeps the taxobox neater. 4 people is hardly a consensus. I'm willing to change if we get more input, but let's get more input first." I agree generally with MPF and with my original statement that the boxes are cluttered already and dates can be given, especially with the full citation to the authority, linked to the references. KP Botany 13:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

KP, I'm not sure I understand the preference for an inline citation reference. Can you link to an example? Do you mean you prefer using the ref tags in the authority field with the citation being the full authority like MPF's example above? Personally, I have reservations about citing sources like that if I don't have them on hand. (For example, there's uncertainty who described the genus Forstera, but I can't locate a copy of the 1780 publication to check.) Often, I'll also gather my authority information from another source, so I should actually be citing the source I got it from and not the original authority information in the ref tags. I prefer dates in the authority field because it gives the non-botanists reading these articles an easy idea of how long ago the taxon was described without having to search for that information in the references section. I also prefer it when describing a list of synonyms in the taxobox, allowing the reader to form a rough timeline of who/when these other names were used to describe a certain taxon. --Rkitko ^(talk) 14:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we are assuming that the full reference for the authority will be given as an inline citation; thus, the date can be gleaned from the References in any case. The question being polled is whether or not to include the date in the taxobox text. As an aside, I apologize for using "X feels that" as a synonym for "X is of the opinion that". But more opinions on either side would be very welcome! Willow 13:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the date should be excluded. It is not standard botanical practice (in contrast to zoology, where it is the norm, and iirc required by the ICZN).--Curtis Clark 13:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The date should be included (but only in the Taxobox), because the references may very likely contain more than one article by the author credited with publishing the name. The publication dates are regularly included on WikiCommons as well. --EncycloPetey 15:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I realize it's not standard botanical practice and I would never advocate including a date in-text after the author abbreviation, but in this case we're talking about including the date in a helpful summary box. I think it resides outside of botanical convention like this (especially when I don't understand why that convention exists - is anyone able to clarify that?) and we should include as much (reasonable) information as possible. In the lay reader's objective, a date may be important. --Rkitko ^(talk) 14:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd favour MPF's suggestion of a full citation. Lavateraguy 15:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dates are not normally used with the name in botany, if one needs a full citation he/she should refer to the IPNI (list of citations), not Wikipedia (encyclopaedia). Aelwyn 19:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, just to clarify, we're not debating whether a full inline citation (i.e., a footnote) should be included, but rather whether the date of the taxonomic authority should appear within the taxobox. For ease of comparison, I added taxonomic authorities to Acetabularia and its higher taxonomic groupings. I included the date in the Acetabularia taxobox ("Lamouroux, 1812"), but excluded it on the higher ones (e.g., " KR Mattox & KD Stewart" in Ulvophyceae). As an aside, please note the discrepancy for the Chlorophyta; is the unreferenced "Reichenbach, 1834" correct or the more recent Pascher authority? Willow 19:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It would depend on the circumscription we decide to use and the limits of the concept set in each publication. I don't know how each author chose to circumscribe the group and which is/were validly published. You could try asking Paul Silva or Richard Moe at UC Berkeley. --EncycloPetey 21:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Curtis's comment, a thing about putting dates in with botanical citations is that it makes our botanical citations unusual. Is this acceptable? Should we be striking out and establishing original methods of citations? What is the purpose of this information in the taxobox? If we include it so that users can find the proper citation to use themselves, then the date should not be included, because, for most botanical publications it would not be a correct style to include the date. If we include it so that users can find the proper authority for naming the species, how will the date expand beyond the taxon and the authority when Rkitko is worried that even with the date he can't check. Although, I'm not certain I follow your example. Wikipedia isn't a botanical and taxonomically authorative place to be seeking authorities, also, it's an encyclopedia. So, how much information is useful? How much more useful is the date? Can you give me a specific example where the authority alone is insufficient, but the date will give more information of the sort a general encyclopedia reader might be seeking?

There is always a call to include more in the taxoboxes. Botany doesn't use dates in citations, so I think they should be left out on Wikipedia, unless there are compelling arguments for how the taxobox addresses a need with the date that including the information in the text doesn't. And by in-line I simply mean that the authority is footnoted to a reference on the bottom.

Also Wikipedians should not be consulting the original reference when there is confusion about a name to find the correct name--we should simply mention and reference the confusion. To do more is original research, and since the taxonomists themselves are confused, giving more than they give is inappropriate. KP Botany 01:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A general Wikipedia reader may know nothing of IPNI or locations to find authority information. If we can provide that information in a reasonable manner in a taxobox, I see nothing wrong with that. Like I said above, the year gives the reader a sense of how recent the current name is. The year in the plant article immediately lets the reader know that it is more recent than many may think. It also allows for an easy comparison in relation to other taxa.

...when Rkitko is worried that even with the date he can't check. - I'm not worried I can't check in most situations. What I'm saying is that most of readers will not know how to access that information themselves and rarely do our articles (mostly stubs) cover such information in-text. Providing it in the taxobox is an improvement, in my opinion. That the botanical convention is to not use dates in author citations in the line of text is of no concern here since these are quick-reference taxoboxes. We would not be establishing a new citation style but merely providing the information concisely in our established taxoboxes. I don't see how that's embarking on a new path away from botanical convention. Thanks for clarifying the other points there. --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

But who are you providing the information for? You do realize that most of these references are in Botanical Latin, unlike in the animal kingdom where modern naming articles are at least written in the native tongue of the author. And giving the date does not tell the user how to access a middle 19th century Spanish natural history journal with a Latin publication of a California plant name by a French botanist, and even if it did, we've given Wikipedia readers what with this information? I just don't see what we are giving our readers, I'm kind of lost by what this extra work and crowding of taxoboxes is really accomplishing. Maybe an example with a text that is available on line and confusing dates and how accessing the text enhances Wikipedia can show how useful this would be? A specific example could really show me what we're not providing for our readers. KP Botany 02:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that by including the dates we're laying out a map on how to obtain the reference. I was noting that most of our articles say nothing about when the taxon was described. Ideally each would. I can tell you what I get from the information provided this way: I'm easily able to distinguish which taxa are older and which are more recent and when synonyms are provided, their dates allow me to form a mental timeline (if none is given in text) of when these were authored. I also don't think it's extra work or a crowding of the taxobox. --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so why are you looking for when the taxon was named, what does this provide? And how many of our readers are also doing this? This is a lot of extra work for the very few botanical authors we have. A lot. So, I'd like to understand that the benefits are a lot. But I'm not seeing what the advantage of or reason for knowing when an authority named the plant, outside of finding the original description, is? What do you do with this information and how many other general encyclopedia readers will have a similar need for this information? The only thing I've ever used it for is when verifying plant names for taxonomy write-ups. And I would have been fired had I even suggested using Wikipedia for a resource, plus there are specialized subscription data bases plus free ones that are used for this. KP Botany 03:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this. There are three options I can accept, in order of preference:

Follow the ICBN and also provide a full bibliographic citations;
Follow the ICBN = no dates.
I could even reluctantly accept a decision not to follow the ICBN, in which case we should make it very clear that we aren't following the ICBN, by, for example, expanding author abbreviations to full names, and dumping the basionym author.

What this proposal would do is make it look like we're trying to follow the ICBN but we're too daft to do it right, and have f**ked up by accidentally applying the zoological convention.

Hesperian 02:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Eschscholzia californica Cham." is a botanical name with a customary author citation. "Eschscholzia californica Cham., 1820" is not. Either the taxobox follows the custom of the ICBN (which, btw, doesn't prohibit dates), or it doesn't. To "improve" upon the botanical custom is original research. To abandon it is not. As long as everyone understands this (and as long as the same decision applies to zoological and bacteriological names, i.e. if taxoboxes don't follow botanical custom, they don't have to follow the others either), then it really doesn't matter.--Curtis Clark 03:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that including dates in the taxobox constitutes original research. Wikipedia has created its own style guidelines and that's not considered OR. This is a style issue, not a proposal to depart from the ICBN (especially since no one's proposing that we add dates to in-line text. That, I agree, would be out of line). --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Dates are not included in casual references to taxa or in most general descriptions, but they are included regularly in certain publications that treat a summary classification. The most recent thorough revision of the Marchantiophyta by Stotler & Crandall-Stotler cites all the families and higher taxa with dates as well as authors. Crun & Anderson's Mosses of Eastern North America cites the date along with the author for all the included species and for all synonyms. Rudolf Schuster's Hepaticae and Anthocerotae of North America cites with author and date for each and every taxon in all six volumes whenever the taxon appears as a section header (and for all listed synonyms). Grolle's Nomina Generica Hepaticarum cites with dates in the format of day, month, and year! And you don't even have to look to the bryophyte publications for examples, since Cronquist's magnum opus An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants includes author and date following each class, subclass, order, and family whever they appear as headers. There is plenty of precedent in comprehensive publications for including the date, especially in works that attempt to be thorough and comprehensive for large groups of plants. Since WP is attempting to be thorough and comprehensive, I think following the experts' precedent of citing with date should be followed. --EncycloPetey 05:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

One more example: Tree Ferns by Large and Braggins uses the author and date format for all species and synonyms. Mgiganteus1 05:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still opposed. You guys who support need to think about precisely what event the date would be attached to. Five examples, from easiest to hardest:

Supplementum Plantarum has 1781 on its cover page, but it has been determined that it wasn't published until 1782. 1781 or 1782?
Transferred taxa: year of publication or year of transfer? e.g. Banksia spinulosa var. cunninghamii (Sieber ex Rchb.) A.S.George, published as B. cunninghamii in 1827, demoted to a variety of B. spinulosa in 1981. 1827 or 1981?
Replacement names. e.g. Banksia gardneri A.S.George, published in 1981 as a replacement name for its basionym, B. prostrata R.Br., which was published in 1830 but much later discovered to be a later homonym of B. prostrata Sweet. 1830 or 1981?
Banksia prionophylla F.Muell., published in 1853, but a nomen nudum. The following year, Meissner published a formal description, as Banksia prionophylla F.Muell ex Meisn. 1853 or 1854?
Autonyms. Banksia spinulosa was published in 1793. In 1981, three subspecies were defined. The subspecies that encompasses the type material of the species is automatically named Banksia spinulosa var. spinulosa. As an autonym, it is not considered to have been published per se. So do you date it by the species publication in 1793, or by its first use in 1981, or omit a date?

Personally I think you're about to open a great big can of worms. Hesperian 06:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

These are all readily answerable if we decide to go down the road of giving full citations (where plenty of others have of course dealt with these questions!); the answers are 1: the actual date of publication 1782; 2: the date of the combination being used, so 1981; 3: the date of the nom. nov., so 1981; 4: the date of first valid publication, so 1854; 5: autonyms are regarded as published as of the date of their parent taxon, and cited as Banksia spinulosa Author var. spinulosa Publication, 1793 (not Banksia spinulosa var. spinulosa Author, Publication, 1793). That apart, I'd agree we don't want to open a big can of Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758. - MPF 13:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Petey, there are more that don't, so do we go with majority of experts or with the minority of experts? KP Botany 02:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There are more that don't, but my point is that the kind of publications that do include them are more akin to Wikipedia. The kind of publications that don't include dates are field books, local floras, textbooks, etc. But major publications include the dates after the author name, such as in the Flora of North America, as do systematic treatments of taxa such as monographs. I would rather we emulate the FNA and monographic work than field guides. --EncycloPetey 15:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't use field guides for Wikipedia articles, they're generally not authoritative. I do use monographs and textbooks, and regional floras, but major publications in the botanical sciences, which is a fast paced science these days, are the technical journals such as the American Journal of Botany. AJB includes dates, as I recall, in in-text citations, but not in the titles of articles, nor in abstracts or keywords, and a taxobox is an abbreviated source of a limited amount of information. The online FNA, by the way, gives citations, not the date: Anemia Swartz, Syn. Fil. 6, 155. 1806. Do they give dates in the text when they give names, or are you talking about the citations they give? If we're emulating the FNA are we emulating just part? We're also not a flora, we're a general encyclopedia. What does Brittanica use? KP Botany 15:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The print FNA includes dates following each taxon name, whether genus, or species (but not family), when that name appears at the start of a section on that taxon. And I don't know what on-line version you looked at, but the one at the Missouri Botanical Garden also gives dates for generic and species names. --EncycloPetey 00:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Petey, I didn't mean they "don't give dates," what I meant was they "give citations, not just a date." You're arguing that we should use dates like FNA does. But FNA gives full citations, not the author and a date, but the actual citation to where it was first identified.

"AMBLYODON Palisot de Beauvois. Magasin Encyclopédique 5: 323. 1804"[1]

So, are you arguing we should include in taxoboxes the full citation like FNA, or we should use a variation of FNA? Because it's rather confusing to me what you're arguing for by using FNA as the example, when FAN doesn't seem to be using the type of citations you are talking about. They include the publication after the author name, then the date. Please look at their citations again and see what I mean--this one I got from the MOBOT website. KP Botany 00:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis

If I understand correctly, the arguments are thus (please correct this list if I have misconstrued):

Pro

It provides disambiguation of homonyms that have the same author.
Examples:
Tessellina Dum. 1822 & Tessellina Dum. 1874

Codonia Dum. 1822 & Codonia Dum. 1874
It provides disambguation when earlier publications are considered invalid.
Example:
Protosphagnum nervatum Nejburg 1956, Protosphagnum nervatum Nejburg 1958, & Protosphagnum nervatum Nejburg 1960 (the first two are nom. inval.)
It provides direct evidence of the recency of a name.
The date is usually included in high-order taxonomic works and monographs, and sometimes in major floras.
??

Con

It does not disambiguate homonyms with the same date of publication
Example (with same date and publication but different page numbers, requires a full bibliographic citation to disambiguate):
Papa S. Gray, Nat. Arr. Brit. Plant. 1: 686; 1 Nov 1821 & Papa S. Gray, Nat. Arr. Brit. Plant. 1: 679; 1 Nov 1821
Although the date following the author is required by ICZN, it is not part of ICBN, and is therefore unusual in botanical publications, and, worst case, would lead a botanically savvy reader to assume that the editor who added it was unfamiliar with botanical practice, and that the nomenclature given would be suspect.
High-order taxonomic works and monographs only provide the date in the context of a full bibliographic citation.
The date of publication is often not available in floras or other non-monographic references, thus requiring an editor to consult IPNI or some other reference and hope that the information is there and is accurate.
The only date that should be used is the date of priority of the name under the ICBN, and it is sometimes necessary to understand the rules of publication and priority to get this right, providing yet another pitfall for an unwary editor.
Dates for replacement names may mislead less sophisticated readers into thinking the taxon itself is recently discovered/published.
Including the year in a field labeled "Binomial name" or "Trinomial name" would be nomenclaturally incorrect. Providing a separate citation field would look silly unless the full citation was given in addition to the year.

--Curtis Clark 14:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC) & emendation by EncycloPetey 15:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC) and by Curtis Clark 19:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC) and by Hesperian 02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like someone to tell me the value of "direct evidence of the recency of a name" is. Pesonal curiosity about what people are using the knowledge for is all? KP Botany 15:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the original person who proposed this meant, but I could imagine that is cases where a well-known and long-established plant name has been changed, it makes it easy for someone to see "Oh, that must be a recently published name change." Again, I'm not sure what was intended by that sentence. --EncycloPetey 16:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I could hazard multiple guesses, but I'd like a specific answer from someone who wants the information, rather than guesses. If we don't even use it for that reason ourselves, providing it for the users based on guesses of reasons for what someone would use it seems inappropriate. And, without a reason, I don't know whether it's an appropriate reason for inclusion in the taxobox or not. But mostly, I'm curious what people are using it for. KP Botany 16:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I should say this is more likely to be a disadvantage: the recency of the name will mislead less sophisticated readers into thinking the taxon itself is recent. Hesperian 02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean thinking the taxon was recently found and identified or something like that? That was the only example I could think of where I ever looked up a date that something was described for the literature and that was Metasequoia, but it's rather technical looking up the date a taxon was first described, and with rare exceptions like Metasequoia it's not going to be something that the non-taxonomist botany editor at Wikipedia can do accurately--I had a multi-page checklist that I had to conform my research to, and was only doing it because it was something straight-forward like Metasequoia. Even discussing it, I'm not sure we're all on the same page (ie, are we discussing dates with names or full citations in the case of FNA). If we can't make ourselves clear to each other about the issue, I don't see that we're going to be correctly adding dates to Wikipedia taxoboxes with any ease. Reading the taxocom list serve I see taxonomists struggle and disagree and reach no conclusion over names and dates all of the time--how can we do better than the experts, and why should we set that standard for botany editors? I would rather not have the information than risk it being mostly inaccurate. I admit to total lack of sophistication when it comes to taxonomical literature. I've worked with it for a couple of years. I read it regularly. But I'm not a sophisticated editor when it comes to botanical dates, and although I'm not editing much lately, I do routinely, when I have time, add references and authorities to taxoboxes and articles. I don't see spending days to make sure a date is correct. KP Botany 03:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

My view is the exact opposite. I've just written quite a long taxonomic history section on Banksia sessilis. If I had to condense that section down to a single year, that year would be 1809, not ~~2006~~2007. If either of those dates represents a minor technicality of little interest to the layman, it is ~~2006~~2007. That's why I think providing a year is of negative net value - its potential to confuse exceeds its potential to inform. We seem to be in violent agreement. Hesperian 05:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If I read the article correctly, the only possible date would be Banksia sessilis (Knight) A.R.Mast & K.R.Thiele, 2007.--Curtis Clark 13:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks, fixed. My point stands. I agree that the only possible date would be 2007, but this date only has nomenclatural significance. In terms of the taxon, it is virtually irrelevant. Why clutter up the taxobox with dates of little interest and relevance? Hesperian 11:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I say we should only use dates actively ("prose" use is just fine, and already done) when there is active discussion of homonymy, otherwise, it's just too technical. THis is a general encyclopedia, not a taxonomic flora. Circeus 17:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by Protosphagnum nervatum; are the variants invalid, or illegitimate? Wikipedia has no business even listing nomina nuda (invalid names) unless they are in widespread use.--Curtis Clark 19:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that if we give only the author of the name on the entry page, and the references cite all the three publications, then the reader will not know which one was the place of publication and might (erroneously) assume it was the first publication. Therefore, we must include the date of publication to indicate which publication is the one in which the name was validly published. --EncycloPetey 00:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To me, the point is that the ability to distinguish between invalid and illegitimate names is a prerequisite for being able to supply a correct date of publication for priority purposes.--Curtis Clark 04:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is why the dates should be supplied, so that each reader won't have to go do that for themselves. --EncycloPetey 03:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of supplying a date if it is incorrect? If an editor can't determine whether a name is invalid or illegitimate, why would the same editor be able to do more than parrot whatever date was in the closest reference at hand? If the reference contains the complete bibliographic citation for the name (as contrasted with the bibliographic citation for the basionym or some other nomenclatural synonym), that would be useful, but, unlike zoology, where people tend to get the dates right because they are required to have them, in botany unreferenced dates are generally suspect. My inclination would be to put {{fact}} beside every plant taxobox date that didn't have a reference.--Curtis Clark 04:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning in the first part of what you wrote above, but I think I would agree with the final assessment about wanting the reference citation to appear at the bottom of the page. Wikipedia wants references, and the publication source for a taxon;s name is an importnat one. --EncycloPetey 04:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I don't have time to edit anymore. Let me know when the requirements for editing botany articles on Wikipedia drop below that of the level that troubles full professors of taxonomy. And, Petey, you didn't even get the dating correct in FNA, it's citations, not names with dates, it's a bit much for you to be demanding from others what you're not doing accurately. KP Botany 03:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to consider every proposal as a "demand", then I'm afraid we can't do anything to help you. I will continue to contribute what I can to Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 03:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still a bit much for you to be demanding of others what you can't do accurately. KP Botany 03:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to criticize lack of accuracy on the part of others, then please have the courtesy to be accurate yourself. I have made no "demand". I think what you mean to say is "How dare you propose we do something I think is incorrect." --EncycloPetey 03:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, what I mean, is what exactly are you proposing since you gave an example of FNA as your source for dates after authors, but it includes citations, not authors and dates. I asked you twice to clarify what you mean, and you ignored this, but continue to argue for dates with everyone else without answering serious issues, like, how can we use dates accurately when we aren't reading the sources accurately. If you can't get them accurate yourself, what the sources are saying, that is, why are you demanding that we change how we do it here? And how is demanding any more inaccurate than calling "date after the author" what is actually author, citation, and date? I don't see it as any more inaccurate on my part to call something what I want when it's convenient than for you to do the same. That's what I mean--I'll be as accurate as you are. And our dates will be what, somewhere within the vicinity of what we read somewhere? KP Botany 04:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have identified multiple publications (above) to show exactly what I mean. If, rather than looking them up to see what I mean, you would rather "call something what [you] want when it's convenient" in order to rant, that's your decision. However, that isn't appropriate etiquette for a Talk page on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 04:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then, I'll try again. Are they nomina nuda, as you say, or are they illegitimate? If they are nomina nuda, are they in wide use? I don't have Index Muscorum at hand, so I can't look it up myself.

Are what nomina nuda? We were just talking about format of presenting names in publications. You'll have to give me something more specific to answer. I don't have access to Index Muscorum either, since I don't often work with mosses these days. The only moss example I've given is Protosphagnum, and the source I used for that is Oostendorp (as cited on the article's page). Oostendorp lists three "names" in publications dated 1958, 1959, and 1960, the first of which describes the holotype and gives a name. The first two of these are tagged as "nom. inval." by Oostendorp without further explanation, so I am relying on Oostendorp's expertise, as cited. --EncycloPetey 04:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely anything but clarifying what you meant. Believe me, I figured that one out. You meant whatever it was you meant that was convenient for you to mean. And that's what I guess you mean by dates in the taxobox. You refuse to clarify, but you ask it from others for some reason. Then someone asking you for clarity should be ignored and called a ranter. I like that. You want clarity from everyone, but you won't give it to anyone. You clearly don't want clarity except as it suits you from everyone else, but won't give it. Dates will just be more of the same. That's enough. KP Botany 04:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I see where you're coming from now. A date/citation is a place to go look up what was said by an author, and you're unwilling to make that effort, as evidenced by the fact you won't go investigate the sources I gave. As a result of your view, you want to keep them out of plant taxoboxes, and would rather spend time ranting. Now it all makes sense. --EncycloPetey 04:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you won't go back and verify what's in your sources, so why should I consider them worthy of looking at? I look at one, it's wrong, now you're all over me about not checking out the others. Are you sure your other sources are correct? You don't even know the one is wrong, so I'm going to assume you don't know anything about the others. Oh, wait, I see, that is the point, you don't know whether the others are correct, and you're badgering the fuck out me rather than verifying the one, to find out whether they are correct. Now it all makes sense! I get it, Petey. You don't know what's what in your sources, but you want Wikipedia to do something a certain way according to what you think or hope or what might be in some of the sources you inaccurately quote. Don't worry, you can have the sources and the plant articles. Thank you for being so nasty to me, for assuming my concerns didn't have any part of being in Wiki project plants--next time, instead of ignoring people, just tell them to get the fuck out, because everything should be done your way, the way you think your refernces do it. KP Botany 16:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion with troll ended. --EncycloPetey 04:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

But why does this belong in the taxobox? Britannica doesn't give authors on line. I don't know what they do in print. KP Botany 00:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Because (1) the taxobox is a summary of nomenclature and taxonomy, (2) the taxobox is designed for it, and (3) it is a standard location to place the information. --EncycloPetey 01:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find the FNA or Britannica taxoboxes either, but, again, just see my last comment. KP Botany 16:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And you're arguing for the full citation like FNA has, or just the date, but using FNA as an example or what? Or maybe FNA does it various ways, but I can't find the ones with just the dates, but that's what you mean as the example? --KP Botany 01:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Karr-

Karr- (via WP:PROD on 15 October 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin for Wiktionary, this is patent nonsense and should be deleted. --EncycloPetey 12:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Floristic provinces

Sadly, we have very few articles about floristic provinces, regions and kingdoms. If they would be created, it could be much easier to define plant distribution in various articles about plant taxa in a standard way. Maybe it would be worth adding such a parameter to some infobox. Should we coordinate efforts to improve the situation? Colchicum 13:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Colchicum is being modest here, having greatly improved the North American Atlantic Region article. I doubt there are easy answers here - in particular, when to provide a generic term, like "north american members of this genus", when to use political boundaries or some approximation (e.g. World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions), and when to use provinces (some of which are more natural groupings than others). But I'm all for more material on ranges and ecology. Kingdon 14:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The situation is rather dire. We are even lacking some articles on world biomes, such as Deciduous forest which is currently a subsection of the article on deciduous biology. --EncycloPetey 15:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

those are just summaries that hopefully will link to full blown articles, a number of books exist just covering each major Biome and a number of subtypes extist for each, Oak-Elm, OR Maple-Basswood, for the Deciduous - I don't have the time to do them now- it would involve an overview of Climate, biology, soil science. etc to do them right. Hardyplants 18:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done my bit with Esperance Plains, Mallee (biogeographic region) and Warren (biogeographic region). But this discussion, and those of us inclined to respond to it, should probably move ourselves over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecoregions. Hesperian 02:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mimicry in plants

Greetings plant people. I've been working on mimicry and related articles lately, and I'm looking at how the article can be broken up into a set of subtopics as it grows larger. One possibility is an article about mimicry in plants, a subject on which there is much to write about. At the moment I'm tending to split it off based on non-taxonomical classifications, such as aggressive mimicry. However, plant mimicry has some cases that don't fit within some of the more standard headings, such as mimicry affecting pollination and dispersal. Would anyone be interested in such an article? If there was to be one, should the scope be mimicry by plants, or mimicry by and of plants (perhaps mimicry and plants? Richard001 22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Mimicry in plants might be better, personally. --EncycloPetey 00:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

SEWilco sits in a maple and mimics a squirrel. (SEWilco 00:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

I have a long list of articles to work on and expand on this topic, so I don't intend to create the article in the near future myself, but if anyone here is interested by all means go ahead - I'll be happy to help out where I can. Cases of camouflage that don't fit well within the traditional view of mimicry are also relevant, for example plants mimicking rocks. It could even be called 'camouflage and mimicry in plants'. Mimicry of plants by other taxa could also be briefly mentioned even if not within the main scope. Richard001 01:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested except that I'm already overextended. I will note that plant mimicry includes both physical mimicry of form as well as biochemical mimicry of pheromones and thermal mimicry. --EncycloPetey 01:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Mimicry in plants, and when SEWilco gets enough press we'll title that one, "Human mimicry of mammals in maples." I wish I had time to help, you're doing a lot of good work on plant articles, Richard, but I have no time. KP Botany 02:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made a start on Vavilovian mimicry, which is a form of mimicry exclusive to plants. Would mid-importance be about right for the plants project? Richard001 23:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The rating sounds about right to me. It's a nicely written article already; I wasn't aware there was a specific mimicry term for this phenomenon. --EncycloPetey 03:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Botanical descriptive vocabulary

I'm working on this are over at Wiktionary (see my recent contributions), and could use some help. The problem is that X-shaped is often inaccurate or actually not very descriptive (awl-shaped for "subulate" means virtually nothing).

My current problem is wikt:cuneate, which is normally described as "wedge shaped". However, a wedge is basically a triangular cut of something, and the triangular shape is already taken by wikt:deltoid and wikt:sagittate, so how am I to describe "cuneate" (and its derivative "obcuneate")? Also, the term seems to be used sometimes to describe specifically the base (as the opposite of "acute"). If the featured image on leaf shape is to be trusted, a cuneate leaf is an obovate leaf acute at both ends (or an acute oblanceolate leaf), is that accurate?

Similarly, if wikt:attenuate is defined as "Gradually tapering into a petiole-like extension toward the base.", how should one define "subattenuate"? Circeus 19:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of these will be better explained by the addition of pictures. You might do a general request over on Commons for help creating such illustrations, in the form of photos, scans, or drawings. There are some really good and really eager artists around. --EncycloPetey 21:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

While images are greatly useful, it is crucial for a dictionary to be able to provide a clear and accurate textual description, which I can't do if even botanists are apparently unwilling to sit and explain the terms (I'm complaining about the absence of actualdefinition those terms from web botanical lists.) I'm adding terms like "subacute" and subacuminate to my list (these two in particular seem of little descriptive value to me). *sigh* I guess I'll have to find a couple good latin botanical dictionaries at some point. Circeus 21:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"sub" or "ob" is often used to mean the inverse so instead of having a point that ends acutely subacute for example would start off acute and end bluntly or some such thing (note the attachment point as reference were to start). When you see "sud-Ob what ever" think of the "what ever" turned around or the opposite normal condition. These terms come and go in usage and as long as they are used consistently with the same meanings it almost bearable- but when your sources use different terms for the same thing or the same term differently then its a REAL PAIN in the A**. Hardyplants 18:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The best one is Stearn, though it has some shortcomings. --EncycloPetey 22:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Random thought: is it just me or is there more redundancy and approximation in botanical vocabulary than botanists are willing to admit? Circeus 23:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not going to catch us admitting that. KP Botany 03:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

But I think it's fair to say that botanical nomenclature is oligosyllabic, hyperbombastic, subapproximate, and reundinate. ;) --EncycloPetey 03:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Stearn and it was about as unhelpful as I expected on subacute and subacuminate ("nearly or moderately acute/acuminate"... WTF people??). Good thing those are so rare they're hardly worth bothering with. Now if only I'd remembered to check cuneate *rolls eyes at own stupidity*. Circeus 03:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

He says "Wedge-shaped; inversely triangular with rounded angles". --EncycloPetey 03:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Which contrasts with sagittate, where the base is indented. Deltoid is another issue; diagrams often show it with much less rounded angles, but it is often applied as a specific epithet to leaves that don't match that.

But "deltoid" is triangular, attached by the stalk to one side of the triangle; "cuneate" is triangular, attached by the stalk to one corner of the triangle. The two are opposite shapes. --EncycloPetey 04:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Then what's obcuneate?--Curtis Clark 06:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That just makes "Cuneate" and "obdeltoid" synonymous then... Oh, and something tells me someone wasn't paying attention when they named Sagittaria cuneata... I think I'll be honest and admit that in practice the word is a bit of a catch-all for triangular stuff. Circeus 05:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

All this reminds me of the original intent of the Jepson Manual to avoid technical terminology as much as possible. I knew it had gone too far when my description of the petals of Argemone as obcuneate came back from the editor altered to "ob-wedge shaped".--Curtis Clark 04:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave up on using the Jepson Manual for two reasons: (1) the decision by otherwise died-in-the-wool cladists to use the broadest possible concept of the Liliaceae, and d@mn the phylogenies, along with (2) the discovery while keying out a species of Pinus that they'd included a major couplet in the key: "Cones torn apart by animals/Cones not torn apart by animals." --EncycloPetey 04:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

At the time that the decision was made, "Liliaceae" s.l. was not fully resolved, and there was still a lot of controversy. By the time the manual was published, much of that had been settled, but by then it was too late. It's also important to remember that the large number of contributors assures that some parts will be better than others.--Curtis Clark 06:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's one of the best ways of distinguishing P. flexilis and P. albicaulis - trees of the former have intact, empty cones on the ground beneath them, trees of the latter don't, at best you'll find cone cores with a few basal or apical scales left on. It's much better than couplet 28 for Pinus in FNA "Pines of e North America / Pines of w North America", useless for anything that is or might be cultivated or naturalised. I've got a high regard for the Jepson Manual. - MPF 22:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

While I have very high regard for the people who worked on it, and portions of it are excellent, I'm disappointed overall. Hopefully they will someday be able to do an electronic version that doesn't impose so many constraints on the authors. --EncycloPetey 23:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I got down cuneate to the fact it's used in three distinct definition:

Wedge-shaped in general
Obdeltoid, but with a better defined triangular shape
Having straight sides meeting at one end (in theory the base, but in practice either)

Can somebody double check wikt:cuneate to make sure my usage note makes sense? Circeus 17:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cuneate when used for leaf shape means that the leaf slowly tappers down. So if its used for the leaf shape the apex is wide and the leaf margins tapper down to the base, when used for just the base of the leaf it means that base evenly tappers down forming a wedge shape. Cuneate does not mean triangular shaped - that is what deltoid means, obdeltoid means the stem attaches on the narow side instead of the wide side of the triangle. Hardyplants 18:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, given the actual shape of leaves that leads to use of "cuneate" (see S. cuneata above) and the fact that almost all non-botanical dictionaries report it as just "wedge-haped" anyway, it does mean that too (what other shape do you expect a wedge to have?). I haven't found a definition of deltoid reporting on a specific side of attachment, but see our images from leaf shape: Image:Leaf morphology no title.png, Image:Deltoid leaf.JPG. Circeus 19:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cuneate is Wedge shaped and long sided with margins that have straight lines on each side, The picture on the one chart above is oblanceolate shaped not cuneate. while deltoid has sharp angeled top and a more or less a flat base. If you look at the pictures for the different shapes in texts you most often can see were the stem should attach. Hardyplants 19:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

On Sagittaria cuneata - never trust a plant name to mean what it should, here is the description for the shape of the leaves: leaves long petioled, sagittate, hastate, halbererd-shaped, lanceolate or phyllodial" no were in there is cuneate. Hardyplants 20:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What might be adding to the confusion is that cuneate is not normally used for leaf shape but as a description of leaf base shape. Hardyplants 20:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have the impression that botanical terminology has not been consistent between authors, especially between earlier and later authors. (For example amphitriploids can be triploid or hexaploid, depending on the author.)

An 19th century definition of cuneate, from Bentham's Outlines of Botany is (of a leaf) "when broadest above the middle, and tapering towards the base, compared to a wedge with the point downwards", or in modern terms "obovate, base cuneate, apex rounded or truncate". (Jackson's early 20th century botanical glossary just gives "wedge-shaped, triangular", lacking any specific restriction of context to a leaf.

I'd define cuneate as

1. (of a leaf) with the margins tapering to a point at the junction of the lamina (blade) and petiole (stalk) (or stem, if the leaf is sessile), often written "base cuneate".
2. (of a leaf or other laminar organ) obovate with the base cuneate and the apex truncate or rounded.

and I'd be tempted to deprecate the second, in favour of specifying the each of the outline, base, apex and margin separately. Lavateraguy 21:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats the way I learned to do it too.

I could not find a leaf that was what I would call cuneate shaped, but did find one with a cuneate base. The leaf shape is oblanceolate (wider at or above the middle) the base is cuneate, margins are dentate and the apex is obtuse. Hardyplants 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That perhaps highlights the subjective nature of botanical terminlogy. (It's not far from the illustration of cuneate from Linnaeus reproduced in Stearn.) I would have called that elliptical or narrowly elliptical - it's too broad to be lanceolate, and it's broadest at the middle, not above the middle - "narrowly elliptical, base cuneate, apex obtuse, margin coarsely and irregularly toothed".

I seem to recall that definitions of lanceolate and ovate in terms of width/length ratios have been made, but I don't seem to have them to hand.

And how does one describe the centre of gravity of a leaf-blade, rather than its broadest cross-section? Lavateraguy 10:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your right that this leaf is not an ideal subject for all the terms I used, but it illustrates that in real life plants, a lot of them have characters that fall between the idealized terms. My take on lanceolate and oblanceolate is that both are elliptical but describe were the widest point should be. This leaf is right in the middle so went with oblanceolate. Lanceolate shaped leaves are longer than wide, while ovate leaves are wider than long- how is that for a generalization. If one is using many different references a general understanding is helpful of all the most commonly used terms, when using specific references or keys its often helpful to key out material you already understand first, to get a feel of how the author uses the terms, because very often there is great variation between one author and another. I have also noticed that newer works are often less presice than older works, I think reflecting less standardizations of definitions. Hardyplants 11:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between ovate, elliptical and obovate is that ovate leaves are broadest below the middle, elliptical leaves are broadest at the middle, and obovate leaves are broadest above the middle. Your distinction between ovate and lanceolate is incorrect - ovate leaves are commonly longer than wide; lanceolate leaves are much longer than wide, such as in an oiser. The termer for wider than long from Taxon 11 (1962) fide Stearn is depressed ovate. Oblanceolate is much longer than wide, and broadest towards the apex. Lavateraguy 12:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, thats why I called it a generalization, it was just a simple picture that one can use to differentiate the shapes. Descriptions most often use a mix of terms like elliptical-lanceolate, then we can picture it as longer than wide, with the widest point near the middle, the out line is rounded with long tapering ~~ends~~ sides. Elliptical-ovate the leaves are more rounded in outline with the middle the widest. I guess no more generalizations. Hardyplants 13:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Viola/Violet

I was wondering if anyone knows why the Viola article is going under the name Violet. As far as I can tell this violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora).

Referring to them as Violets also produces an unstated bias suggesting that the flowers should be violet in colour, when this is not the case for many Violas.

If this was just being used as the common name for one species it may make sense, but this article is the article for the Viola genus, so it would seem to me that the biological name should be used. --jjron 15:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your right- it should be changed to Viola. Hardyplants 15:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of quibbles I have with the article as it stands, the flowers are symmetrical- not asymmetrical, only a few species have scented flowers, the leaf shape is much more diverse than stated. These are minor things, but the page is heavily tilted toward European and US species. Hardyplants 15:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly zygomorphic, as opposed to actinomorphic, was meant. Lavateraguy 15:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

if no one else gets to it, in a few days I can add some more details. Most species have zygomorphic flowers-though some have nearly actinomorphic flowers. Hardyplants 16:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The Viola article actually exists, but is a redirect to Violet, so I guess we'd just move the content, change the redirect, and look for links. I was going to do a bit of editing, but don't know as much about this stuff as you guys. I actually only went there to add a new high-res image, but it's of an apricot coloured viola, which is sort of where my query started. --jjron 13:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Iirc, the preferred procedure would be for an admin to delete either Viola (plant) or Viola (genus), depending on which one you want to be the ultimate home, and move Violet (plant) to the newly emptied name. That way all the history moves with it as well.--Curtis Clark 14:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to see the article as Viola (plant). We need to have Viola as the musical instrument by that name, and be sure the disambiguation page points to the right location. ...And why doesn't the article have a section about pansies? --EncycloPetey 15:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've now moved the article to Viola (plant) --Melburnian 01:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Re pansies, there is a separate pansy article, which is actually bigger than the viola article. There are links there from the viola article, and vice versa. The pansy article needs work too, for example it talks about planting in "early November for plants ready in the spring", which is pretty northern hemisphere specific given that November is already the end of spring in the southern hemisphere. --jjron 06:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

ACID nom

I've nominated seed for the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. Please vote!

This article looks like it could turn into our project's first "Top"-rated Featured article. I've already looked at the other language WP, and only the French and Itlaian pages have much information. Some of the others (even for major world languages) have only stub articles. I've also asked User:LadyofHats if she would help with a seed diagram. She's done some very nice illustrations in the past.

The article on seedling could also use some work. --EncycloPetey 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Cotton and Gossypium

Do people think the Cotton and Gossypium articles should be merged, the way that Black pepper and Piper nigrum were merged, or kept separate like Grape and Vitis? --EncycloPetey 18:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Separate is good for those. There's just a lot of stuff about cotton that isn't about the plant, so it's more efficient to keep them separate and make good articles out of each. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 19:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Triphysaria genus

I'm not sure what we use as the taxonomic authority for plants on Wikipedia but the genus Triphysaria is placed in the Orobanchaceae family on Wiki while it's listed as the Scrophulariaceae family on ITIS and USDA. I'd change it myself but I'm not too keen on plant taxonomy. Calibas 20:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's quite a few other Orobanchaceae genera in the same boat. Calibas 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the larger changes to familial circumscriptions as a result of the explosion of DNA sequence data has been the breaking up of Scrophulariaceae. The newer conception of Scrophulariacae is a much smaller grouping, with much of the rest of the family now in an expanded Plantaginaceae (or Veronicaceae). The hemiparasitic species have ended up in Orobanchaceae. See Fremontia 30(2), and also the Angiosperm Family Website. Lavateraguy 21:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Phrymaceae.--Curtis Clark 05:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any single taxonomic authority we use? Calibas 22:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no single taxonomic authority, period; that has always been an issue on Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark 05:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That has always been an issue in plant taxonomy, period, not just Wikipedia. By the time any new system is published, it is usually out of date already. --EncycloPetey 12:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well said, EncycloPetey. We should weigh sources for taxonomy just like any other sources, cite sources, and mention both/all classifications where appropriate. Kingdon 23:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Make technical articles accessible

I hate to give people an excuse to argue policy rather than go edit plant articles, but given that this one is a bit of a perennial here on WikiProject Plants, I suppose it is worth a look at what the wider wikipedia community is saying. There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles accessible#Manual of style about whether that guideline is good or bad, whether it has consensus, etc. Maybe I'm just idealistic, but I like to think we can be accessible to a general audience and sufficiently precise (including technical terminology where we need it). Kingdon 23:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Madhuca indica

The article for this was badly confused due to confusion between Bassia (Chenopodiaceae) and Bassia (Sapotaceae). I've had an attempt at cleaning it up but I can't be confident that I've got the correct name for the species, so if anyone knows about this group ...

There's a more detailed article in Wikipedia Francais, as fr:Madhuca longifolia, which may well be the correct name. Lavateraguy 22:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I am proposing to merge the plant fossil article into the article on Paleobotany, which should be the more comprehensive article. Discussion on the matter should be posted exclusively at Talk:Paleobotany#Merge_proposal, and not here. --EncycloPetey 03:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Merged articles. --EncycloPetey 17:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Clonotype

Clonotype (via WP:PROD)

has been transwikied to Wiktionary

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a merge into biological type would be appropriate, or at least a link therefrom to Wiktionary. Lavateraguy 07:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo request duplication

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of plants and Category:Plant articles needing photos are dupes. Something needs to be done to address this issue. Richard001 07:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the problem stems from {{reqphoto}}, which uses simple #if <x>|<x> language. The easiest fix would be to just change the {{WikiProject Plants}} "needs-photo=yes" to add Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of plants, rather than the category it adds now (the only other alternative would be to use #switch on the reqphoto template, which would be an absolute nightmare). The line to switch is [[Category:Plant articles needing photos|{{PAGENAME}}]] (and by the way, changing to {{BASEPAGENAME}} would look a lot prettier on the category). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 23:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with that is the category title. We have some botanist articles that request photos and are thus in the category Category:Plant articles needing photos. (That may not be the most accurate title either; perhaps Category:Botany articles needing images?) Regardless, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of plants doesn't seem to fit all of our articles that can use the needs-photo=yes parameter. Agree on basepagename, though. --Rkitko ^(talk) 19:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe add a "topic=" field to {{WikiProject Plants}}? It would be easy enough to allow it to default to "plants" if no topic is added, but then switch to "botany", "botanist", etc ([[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of {{#if: {{{topic|}}}|{{{topic}}}|plants}}|{{BASEPAGENAME}}]]). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 22:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That might work. This is of little consequence to the discussion, but I personally abhor the category titles such as "Wikipedia requested photographs of..." - it makes it sound as if the entity Wikipedia is requesting the photograph. And what of non-photographs? Illustrations for extinct or seldom-seen plants or botanists that lived before photographs? When I was setting up the assessment for our project, I copied the general formatting from another project. Had I been thinking of other possibilities at the time, I would have chosen the category title I proposed above since it encompases all of our articles that could be requesting images: Category:Botany articles needing images. I'll throw this out there into discussion as well: I suggested elsewhere that perhaps we could use the categories in different ways, so there would be no overlap. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of plants could include editor requests of photographs (e.g. an article that lacks a photo of a specific structure or plant part, perhaps, in anotherwise illustrated article), which could be done through the reqphoto template accompanied by an explanation of what's being requested. Our project's "needs image" category could be used for articles that lack any illustration whatsoever. It may be complicating things a bit, but the demarcation is not out of the question and might be rather useful, given full explanations on the category pages and elsewhere. Just a thought. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Please, have a look at my peer review request at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Peer_reviews#Requests. Add the page to you watchlists! Aelwyn 23:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)