Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)

For those who haven't already noticed this discussion, our flora naming conventions have been called into question, and a link to the discussion posted on the Village Pump. Input from experienced editors who have applied WP:NC (flora), or who have noticed problems in the past with its application should provide their input, as we may have many non-botanists providing input. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion evolved into something unpalatable. I am tired of the hit-and-run trolls/wikilawyers. Why in hell do they care? I've never seen them editing anything related to botany. Colchicum (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Species Plantarum vs. Species plantarum

Shouldn't Species Plantarum, which was originally titled SPECIES PLANTARUM, be moved to Species plantarum? Latin is not English, this is not a proper name or name of a higher taxon, as Linnaeus called the kingdom Vegetabilia rather than Plantae, therefore the correct capitalization is Species plantarum, AFAIK. Colchicum (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a book title, right? I can't seem to find any Wikiguidance, and there are different approaches among style guides, but I think it's safe to say that it should be capitalized in the same manner as any other book title.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
But it is a book title in Latin. This guideline explicitely doesn't apply to Latin book titles. Colchicum (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I am opposed to title case irrespective of language; yet I am inclined to apply our convention consistently irrespective of language. Hesperian 22:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It is not our convention, it is a convention from outside Wikipedia + (neo-)Latin orthography. Colchicum (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it; you obviously know more about neo-Latin orthography than do I. Hesperian 00:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) was once more explicit on book titles!? However, it does mention that article titles are based on published translations rather than OR. I have deviated from this when an author's work was deliberately lower case, although this example is much trickier. The solution might rest on how the most reliable sources render it. IPNI gives it title case and the publication's accepted abbreviation is Sp. Pl., is there another source that doesn't do this? Either way, which ever version is adopted is inconsequential. cygnis insignis 16:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv

On Commons at commons:Category:Images from the German Federal Archive, location Tibetexpedition there are quite a number of plant-related pictures needing identification and categorization. Colchicum (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Flora of Pakistan

92.2.116.251 (talk · contribs) is adding the category to hundreds of articles. Should we do anything about it and about such categories in general? In my opinion, they are not helpful. Colchicum (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Are not categories supposed to be supported by text in the article? I looked over some of them, and many were incorrect or to general to belong. Another thing - do we use Genus and family ranked taxon for these types of flora cats? This might - could be vandalism, is he/she making any contribution that increase the information of any articles? or just making one large cat as a joke. I know that Pakistan has a rich diversity of plant life, but.... 23:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou all for noticing; this has been driving me bananas.[3] I haven't opened a discussion because I was under the impression it was coming from multiple IPs; perhaps I'm wrong there. A visit to his/her talk page should be the first step.
Acanthaceae, Adoxaceae, Agavaceae, Aizoaceae, Alangiaceae, Alismataceae, etcetera most certainly do not belong in Category:Flora of Pakistan.
I'll take this opportunity to evangelise the practice of including only lowest-rank taxa and endemic higher-rank taxa. This doesn't necessarily ban families from those categories; for example, Austrobaileyaceae most certainly belongs in Category:Flora of Queensland, because it is endemic to Queensland.
Hesperian 23:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, basically I think all such categories do more harm than good because it is hard to watch if they are used correctly and the criteria for inclusion are not consistent (should the taxa be endemic to Pakistan to be placed into this category, should they occur in Pakistan, should the criteria be different for species, genera and families or not? Everybody decides for himself, there is no way to enforce any convention here). Such huge categories are not particularly useful anyway. The information would have been better organized into lists. Colchicum (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Strenuously disagree with that. This is just what categories were made for. The problem lies in the implementation not the concept. If every category had a preamble that clearly stated its rationale and scope, as in Category:Flora of Australia (and indeed the entire Flora of Australasia category tree), we might not have to man the pumps quite so often. Hesperian 01:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I took bold action: I did an AWB run removing all taxa above species rank. Have left a message too. Hesperian 11:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

92.2.116.251 (talk · contribs) is still at it, does anyone know...I have to look this up...Urdu or Siraiki or Sindhi; assuming good faith, my guess is that he/she does not understand English that well. Hardyplants (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Lamiales

Beeswaxcandle tells me that Lamiales is abandoned in the third edition of Mabberley's Plant Book. APWeb has no hint of this. Does anyone know what the story is there? More importantly, what are the immediate implications for Lamiales, Category:Lamiales, {{Lamiales-stub}}, etcetera? Hesperian 11:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had a "look inside" the 3rd edition of 2008, at Amazon. One doesn't get much context that way, but he seems to be still using Lamiales. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, but I have mis-read the source. The book has been re-structured between editions and I "lost" the orders which are now all in an appendix rather than in the main section. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

IDs

Please help with the identification of these if you can:

  • No Idea - Hypericum one of the large flowering species, which one can't say off the top of my head? Hypericum calycinum [1]?
    No Idea - Hypericum one of the large flowering species, which one can't say off the top of my head? Hypericum calycinum [1]?
  • A lillium? not a true lily, I have seen this some were- will see if i can find it again. found a name - Sprekelia formosissima, [2].
    A lillium? not a true lily, I have seen this some were- will see if i can find it again. found a name - Sprekelia formosissima, [2].
  • (same as previous)
    (same as previous)
  • - Not enough info for the Zinnia like flower.
    - Not enough info for the Zinnia like flower.

The last two were slightly different colours but came out of the same or very similar plants. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice pictures- they should be added to the correct pages. Hardyplants (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Speaking as a gardener, the last two look like Calendula.[4] First Light (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The notching on the rays look right for Calendula officinalis. Hardyplants (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
That's what clinched it for me, and I should have been more specific - Calendula officinalis is what I meant also. First Light (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I've added a less aesthetic photo of the last flower. The particular specimen was just in the process of opening. I'd say Calendula officinalis is a good fit so will tag them for renaming shortly if no one objects with the additional photo. I think Sprekelia formosissima is a good fit for no 2/3 so have tagged them for renaming Noodle snacks (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It's surely Calendula officinalis - I've grown it for 30 years. The first one may be Hypericum calycinum, based on these two photos.[5][6] First Light (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hypericum calycinum is looking pretty good to me, I found it independently searching as well. The leaves and height of the plant match pretty well. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
And beautiful photos, by the way (along with the many extraordinary ones I just saw on your user page) - I like the last "less aesthetic" one here, also. The way the petals are unfolding, and the orange against the dark green background... First Light (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Geranium dab stuff

Assorted dab stuff. Since the mv got lost in discussion, deal with it as you please. I will not have anything to do with it and do not want to have it clutter up my sandbox. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(Each item is linked or at least referenced in some other article)

START OF DAB LIST

Geranium may refer to:

Plants

Places

Ships

Other

END OF DAB LIST

Oh BTW, since the mv didn't do ahead, somebody has to go through "what links here" at Geranium and fix it up - most of the links to "Geranium", except the spp. pages, probably should link to Pelargonium.
(But I shall give a barnstar to whomever will do this; it'll be well earned indeed. Just drop me a quick note when you're done.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I moved all your hard work to an "other" page listed at the top of Geranium. I am sure I did it wrong- so some may need to look at it and fix it. I will try to figure out how to do the "what links here" and start on those in a day or two. Thank you for all the work you have already done Dysmorodrepanis. Hardyplants (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I got a handle on the "what links here" issue and have started on them. Hardyplants (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
THANKS! (Now I could clean up my sandbox and go on with my work; Odonatoptera has been duly created) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I recast this to remove redlinks, one link per line, and targeted pages like List of rocks in Western Australia in accordance with MOS on dab pages. Now what, overwrite the page?
Its already been done (more or less). I am done with the backlinks for geranium, any one have another page that needs to be done, I can plug away at another - as time permits. Hardyplants (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Carambola/Star fruit article confusion

The article's talk page didn't seem to be well attended, so I thought I could bring my question here. The whole article seems to talk about the fruit of the tree, however the intro to the article opens with "The carambola is a species of tree". It seems to use carambola and star fruit (or starfruit, or Star fruit) interchangeably. Maybe the article should be moved to its common name, star fruit and have the intro reworded? -- MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Its already at a common name, and the binomial name is not even listed in the article (only the taxabox) the problem could be solved by moving the article to its proper binomial name (Averrhoa carambola) instead of one of the common names and beefing up the content about the plant. Hardyplants (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I have made a distinct page for the species Averrhoa carambola, and moved the small amount of relevant material from the fruit page and then adjusted the intro. I will let those that are interested in the fruit to figure out a proper name for that article, both names seem to be heavily used. Hardyplants (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't they be a single article? We don't have separate articles on Apple and Malus domestica, and "carambola" is not a name that can be applied to the fruits of various species, as can "pear" or "cherry". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The apple article does not have much information about "apples" but covers the tree mostly. If you want to clean up the fruit (carambola) info, maybe it can be merged under Averrhoa carambola. As far as I can see there is going to be perodic debates between people who think it should be Carambola or Starfruit for the name of the fruit. Hardyplants (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Flower ID.

I've got a photograph of an interesting flower which I've not seen before but wonder if someone may know what it is. File:Unknown red flower.jpg. Bidgee (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have seen this somewhere too, does it grow outside year round in new south wales, or is in a hot house plant grown under glass? Hardyplants (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Is your picture or flowers upside down? Looks like Coral tree (Erythrina) to me, but just making a guess and an assumption that the picture is showing the flowers the wrong way up. Hardyplants (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Outside and it's located at the Victory Memorial Gardens in Wagga Wagga's CBD. The photo is and was taken the right way round and thats how it flowers. Bidgee (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Since that is the case, then its most likely Erythrina crista-galli. Hardyplants (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks you for your help! It's been driving me nuts trying to work out what it was! Bidgee (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Phaedriel's orchid

Phaedriel's orchid

User:Rlevse suggested moving this to Commons, but it needs a proper name; anyone know? It was growing in a garden of a place I stayed on Nusa Penida. It was "named" as a gift to User:Phaedriel. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a Phalaenopsis hybrid. Melburnian (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It sure looks similar to me, but it's not my field. I find the coincidental similarity of that name to with the one I gave it amusing. I'll transfer this to commons once this section goes stale. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Cyatheatae

This is, according to the Cyatheales article, a subclass of ferns. Can anyone find me a reference to the subclasses, preferably on-line, reliable, but a journal or book anywhere would be fine. --KP Botany (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The wikispecies page gives a source, but I can't tell whether it is properly related. Circeus (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is one source,[7] can't say how good it is....fern taxonomy has been in a state of flux for almost as long as they and humans have been on the planet together. Glad to see you around again KP. Hardyplants (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Neither source contains Cyatheatae, just the order, and the genus. Both sources look fine, robust, by respected fern folks, though. Circeus, Hardy, good to see you. --KP Botany (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm still bumbling about, just not doing sort of really big editing beyond mild copyediting here and there. Circeus (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget to mildly copyedit anything I write! I want to write a big article on plant evolution, a specific area, if I find time. --KP Botany (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How to do a category

I forget how to create categories. I can't find a link to the instructions. Can someone start this category: Carlemanniaceae --KP Botany (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Just click on the red link, and create the category. All you really need to do is put it in a suitable parent category. Hesperian 10:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
... although I note that this family contains only two genera and five species, for a grand total of eight taxa, if we include Carlemanniaceae itself. Personally, such small categories ought not be created. Hesperian 10:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Do whatever is useful, then. I get too easily frustrated with the details. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
PS Hi! --KP Botany (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi! (What Curtis said.) Hesperian 11:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Need I.D.

Need help with an I.d. of this tropical plant. Thanks for any help, even if you can only narrow it down the right family. Hardyplants (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bromeliaceae? I thought I posted this earlier, with the little minus sign. I don't know tropical plant families, but that'd be my first guess, somewhere in that vicinity. Any other clues, like house plant, leaves? --KP Botany (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, duh. When I was looking at it last night, my mind was in a different part of the monocots, and nothing fit.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
If I remember correctly this plant had alternately paired leaves in a tight column, each leaf was monocot-like, about 12 inches long and 2.5 inches wide. The inflorescences was about 2.5 feet tall. Thanks for the help, don't need to over do it- it's not that important. I took the picture at our local zoo/conservetory (they had a lot of other Bromeliaceae too - so I will start my search there), it was planted under some very large palm trees, but I could not find a label. I am going back at the end of winter, and will ask them to I.D. it, if they can, assuming We can't narrow it down here. I am clueless about most true tropical plants too, . Hardyplants (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Bromeliaceae looks right to me. Guettarda (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help KP, Curtis and Guettarda. Getting it narrowed down to the right family made it much easer to find, and I believe that I have found it [8] Aechmea maculata. Again thank you for the help. Hardyplants (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd swear that's it. People often don't notice what the inflorescences look like for the show of the leaves, when it comes to Bromeliads. However, if you've spent a year or so hanging out with a Puya you get a bit obsessed with the flowering spikes. --KP Botany (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Paeonia rockii

Or Paeonia suffruticosa? This book, called The Genus Paeonia (p. 204) says it's P. suffruticosa subsp. rockii.[9] This page on IPNI,[10] supplied by Rkitko leans toward P. rockii, with an explanation of the suffruticosa version. Any Peony experts out there? Thanks. First Light (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. To avoid confusion, the picture on the right is in regard to the previous posting, Need I.D., by Hardyplants. First Light (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Hardy. --KP Botany (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

IPNI doesn't lean either way; it merely records that the two versions are nomenclatural synonyms. The new Flora of China ([11]) says P. rockii. (So does the RHS Plant Finder.) There was an article on this group (sect. Moutan) in The Garden (RHS journal) recently.
To be clear, it is a nomenclatural synonym of Paeonia suffruticosa subsp. rockii S.G.Haw & Lauener, not of Paeonia suffruticosa (subsp. suffruticosa).--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
This paper has three species lying between P. rockii and P. suffruticisa; fide Google Scholar there's quite a bit of literature out there, but a lot of it isn't easily accessible. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks all. This is also being discussed at Talk:Rock's Peony, with another good article linked there. As I posted there, I think I'm beginning to understand. Paeonia rockii is correct, and "Paeonia suffruticosa subsp. rockii" is a synonym? First Light (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
It is true that they are synonyms. The question of which is correct is a taxonomic judgment, rather than a nomenclatural one.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. First Light (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
If you are splitter, then its P. rockii, and if your a lumper its "Paeonia suffruticosa subsp. rockii": Since the lumper camp has generally been more favored over the last 80 years, my guess is the rockii will end up under suffruticosa, or another name if that complex is reorganized, the naming of Peony plants can be messy, since many are highly variable and many of the names were applied to specimens that were collected from cultivated stock that was shipped to Europe. Hardyplants (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know enough to know if I'm a splitter or a lumper (kind of like asking a five-year old if they are a liberal or conservative...)—so I updated the article by adding "Paeonia suffruticosa subsp. rockii" as a synonym. I won't be too deeply hurt if someone wiser than I changes it, as I'm beginning to understand just how much I don't know.... First Light (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
If there is three species between these two, then this is unlikely to be purely a lumpers and splitters issue. Hesperian 04:50, 30 December 2008(UTC)
I am not sure that the three species have been demonstrated to be that distinctive (much depends on the criteria used), and I believe the issue is still very muddy. But your right that its not a "purely... lumpers and splitters issue" because its not that simple to resolve and there is no place to put the knife . I guess we wait for more difinitive data. PS. Thanks for the link to lumpers and splitters. Hardyplants (talk)
A more recent taxonomic analysis included both molecular and morphological data in its phylogenetic trees. The data appear to support the conclusion that the species are not as closely related as one would like in order to call them the same species. As I see it, though, it's always a lumpers/splitters issue. If you're an extreme lumper, you'd be of the opinion that there are only two species of Sarracenia; if you're an extreme splitter, you're approaching a dozen species and up. If you choose your morphological and molecular data carefully, you can support whichever hypothesis you hold. I do think that P. rockii is a little easier since cultivation has embraced the name, lending it legitimacy when the scientific literature backs it up. --Rkitko (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link Rkitko...an interesting study, Its still fuzzy and inconclusive about rockii. Its progress though. The trend in Horticulture is Paeonia suffruticosa rockii and away from from P. rockii. Hardyplants (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is a source that might have a use on the article page: [12] call me a coward, but I am going to wait and see how it plays out befor I make a definitive call. Hardyplants (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

An idea?

Before I continue too far and waste time, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on assembling a list of plant families (or maybe to start, a list of flowering plant families). I have a copy of Heywood et al.'s Flowering Plant Families of the World (2007), which assembled a list of flowering plant families and notes how it is similar to and different from APG II. I've noticed a couple recent contributions to the project at the family level and wondered how many plant family articles remain unwritten (not to mention underwritten). I thought I'd reproduce their list and check for redlinks (any copyright concerns there?). In the process, it would be easier to meet a goal by getting at least a stub written for every plant order and family (of course the other vascular plant orders and families are easy, though I am ignorant on fern taxonomy and of course nonvascular plants and possibly green algae should be included in the list to fully cover our scope). Eventually, perhaps, we could develop a list if we felt it necessary or possible, given the current state of taxonomy at that level and all the various classification systems.

I know everyone is fatigued by the naming convention discussion, but I thought it might be a good idea for me at least to keep being productive elsewhere. Thoughts on this idea? Something I overlooked? Opinion on the feasibility of a list of plant families? --Rkitko (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgot the link to where I started working on this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Families. Feel free to modify as necessary. With sufficient support, I'll continue creating the list to be de-redlinked as updated. --Rkitko (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess you might be talking about the Lamiales families I added recently. I think at family rank and above, we should have an article whether or not the family is currently accepted. List of plant families would probably be too long. Look at how big the horribly outdated List of plant orders is. But List of angiosperm families/list of flowering plant families would be an accessible size, and would be pretty stable these days, and is an obvious list for us to have. Obliquely related: I recently subcategorised Category:Plant orders and Category:Plant families. Hesperian 05:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Egads, that list of plant orders! "Phylum" even? Thanks for the link, don't think I've seen that before or thought to search for it. Any ideas on how to format it? Pick one classification and stick with it like APG II or be a little wishy-washy like the list I started (Heywood and APG II with differences formatted in bold, etc. - may be more work than it's worth, especially since Heywood isn't a new classification; APG II would of course have the optional taxa mentioned anyway)? I'm not particularly attached to Heywood, it's just a reference I have on hand. Could easily just create the list based on APG II alone. --Rkitko (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Even botanists who disagree with it seem to be using APG II for most everything. This would be a good thing to ask Curtis. --KP Botany (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Remember, I've been out of that crossfire for a half-decade. A couple of observations, though: (1) an encyclopedia has to settle on a scheme, and one published in a book (Heywood et al.) is always a better choice than one that one published on a web site; (2) I, personally (and I get the impression that I'm not alone), find the APG families very satisfying. There were morphological conundrums (different characters supported different groupings, and not enough evidence to make a choice) that are now solved.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Nicely hedge. My systematics book uses APG II, and, yes, it's rather satisfying even for the amateur. --KP Botany (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Angiosperm families would be good. Using the names from both Delta-intkey and AGP at mobot would pretty much covere all the plant families. No one owns the taxonomies. I'm wondering about articles on older names, though, how they should be written up? I have a few on my watchlist. --KP Botany (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I think its worthwhile, and I like old families too...they are familiar(Gleason) to me and I am sad when they go into the dustbin of history. As KP and Hesperian say, they should be broken into groups so they are not so overwhelmingly large. It also lets us know that we have not covered allready ( red link and all that) Hardyplants (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


I started adding the families from the list of APG orders on the talk page of the project page created by Rkitko. I don't have Heywood, so I can't see which ones he recognizes or not. I'd like to have a project page with just an alphabetical list of families, also. --KP Botany (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. Like I said, we don't need to follow Heywood, but if no one objects, we could go that way. There's a "Look inside" feature at amazon.com: [13] in the book. Just search for "Classification" and then check out pages 10, 11, and 12. --Rkitko (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea to have a reference system from a book. I don't miss Brya at all, but she did have a good point (which she took too far) about mix-n-match classification systems. She alluded to a not-yet-published version of Mabberley, but if Heywood's a match to our needs, I say let's go for it, and mention it on the project page.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. I'd rather do straight APG II. But I've looked at Heywood, it's in print, it's APG plus some others, and it would be doable. It's firmly secondary, whereas APG II used directly is primary. --KP Botany (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that's cool. Heywood's cheap. Is it any good? --KP Botany (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Fairly. It's not an extensive discussion of each family, but it's well written and mostly defers to specialists for certain families. The reason I got it in the first place was because Juliet Wege's CV mentioned her contribution to the book and I wanted to see if I could incorporate any of the information into the Stylidiaceae or Donatiaceae articles. It's nicely referenced, too, with footnotes at the end of each family's entry. I just have it on interlibrary loan and just renewed it for a full year! I guess it's not a popular item in the library... --Rkitko (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn I created this list years ago... A practical problem is that there are hundreds of additional uncommon names, like all the monogeneric families named by Takhtajan; if the goal is to find obscure names, then the list needs everything, both current and obsolete. Stan (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn someone created it, also. Still, I looked all over my watchlist and couldn't find it. Yes, I would like one central location with all plant family names, including all the Takhtajan ones no one else has ever heard of. Families are the major working unit. --KP Botany (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. So I think the goal would be two-fold. 1) Create a working list of angiosperm families or something similarly titled using APG II or Heywood or (insert reference here) and 2) Create a project resource list of all families published in the major classification systems so we can work on it. Sounds easy enough ;-) Rkitko (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with those who favor APG II as the standard (for angiosperms), having noted that APG II seems to be de facto the classification more people are starting to use in the literature. Using a single system consistently (to the extent that we can do so in the light of new discovery) has great benefits. Yes, we should probably have some sort of comprehensive list of plants families, but there is a serious problem in that many families have widely varied meanings if you mix-and-match different authors. Even a well-known family like Liliaceae invariably requires clarification in order to be meaningful. In other words, if we compile a composite list of APG II, Heywood, Cronquist, Takhtajan, Dahlgren, Thorne, etc. then how do we manage the fact that the same family name in different systems can have enormously differing scope? Wouldn't it be a good idea to apend (in single-letter notation) which major author(s) include that family in their system? And which edition of the Thorne system should we use? --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'd say LAPG rather than APG II and I'd reserve the right to include some research which is newer than LAPG (or APG II), but on the whole I'd be happy with that, as I think it pretty much codifies the practice of people writing papers these days. Cronquist I rule out because it hasn't been updated in 20 years (well, rule out as the main system for things like taxoboxes; it is fine to include information about it in addition given how widely it is used). If APG II starts showing its age in a big way I imagine there will be an APG III or some other update. Just for the record, Liliaceae, as a wastebasket taxon, is one of the hard cases, not the easy ones. There are a vast number of species, for example in Asteraceae and Orchidaceae, where there is little or no disagreement about the family for a given species. Kingdon (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that we should update any list of angiosperm families accordingly when new research presents itself. Even Heywood published in 2007 was too early for the news that Hydatellaceae was removed from the commelinids. It would be silly of us to maintain a list with it listed the way APG II did if there was good reason not to. --Rkitko (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguating common (vernacular) names

I rewrote the introduction to Category:Plant common name disambiguation and also created a template to use on disambiguation pages to put them in that category: {{disambig-plants}}. --Una Smith (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That's funny. I just stumbled across that category myself. I was going to suggest we somehow merge the category with our assessment category, as it seems redundant to have both: Category:Disambiguation plant pages. --Rkitko (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Category:Disambiguation plant pages lists the talk pages of still more plant name disambiguation pages. Pages are put in that category by the use of {{WikiProject Plants|class=Dab}} on the talk page. How about merging or in some other way reconciling these two categories? --Una Smith (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, you know, I just thought that Category:Plant common name disambiguation is really a daughter to Category:Disambiguation plant pages, since the latter can included other botany-related dab pages, including taxonomic dab pages. The former restricts itself to common name dabs only. Seems more useful to have both now that I recognized the distinction. --Rkitko (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I would prefer to move Category:Plant common name disambiguation to Category:Plant common names, the latter category to include all disambiguation pages, redirects, and articles concerning plant vernacular names. Also, put all the associated talk pages of disambiguation pages in Category:Disambiguation plant pages, whether or not the disambiguation concerns common names. --Una Smith (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That would work nicely with the few categories we do have for common name redirects and dab pages: Category:Banksia taxa by common name, Category:Stylidium species by common name, Category:Utricularia species by common name. Seems like a reasonable approach to me. --Rkitko (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have changed the template so that the pages will be included in Category:Plant common names rather than Category:Plant common name disambiguation. Because this involves transcluded links, the change will take effect in a few days. --Una Smith (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, WikiProject Fishes has something similar: Category:Fish common name disambiguation. --Una Smith (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ironbark probably should be a disambiguation page; someone familiar with Eucalyptus please take a look at this page. --Una Smith (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Most articles with talk pages on Category:Disambiguation plant pages are not yet included in Category:Plant common names. I got as far as Ice plant. Along the way, I found some disambiguation pages masquerading as articles:
Would anyone care to work on these? --Una Smith (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Carion flower and Ironbark are perfectly acceptable as articles and should not be redirected. These are common names in use for a particular phenomenon of plants, the first for large and stinky flowers or inflorescences, the second could be expanded. Plants are like this, common names can be used not only for a plant but for an aspect of a group of unrelated plants. The other articles should be strictly disambiguation pages, as far as I can first see. --KP Botany (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Plant common names is growing, and I am thinking it may end up similar to Category:Surnames, which has been the subject of much discussion about how to categorize names (see its talk page). --Una Smith (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Per a CfD, Category:Plant common name disambiguation has been merged into Category:Plant common names. --Una Smith (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive29&oldid=872867031"