Talk:Trillium

message: My mom used to transplant her white trillium plants from place to place on our property (3 acres at the 1,100 foot level in the Willamette Valley) by digging them up with shovel and bucket, and physically moving the entire plant, watering them in the summer when it got really hot.   Instead of dying, the trillium plants persisted.   Our property has a lot of trillium plants growing naturally, even though the whole mountainside was the site of a forest fire 120 years ago.
But as interesting as that may be, are there any cases of people planting and growing trillium plants?
Can trillium plants that are grown in pots or vases be sold in the United States?   216.99.198.20 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a forum. Please see WP:TALK for an explanation of how to use article discussion pages. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Propagating the common white trillium

message: The following sentence is rightly questioned by @Hyperik: "Less than a dozen species are found in Asia." Although I believe the statement is true, I can not provide a proper reference. Should the sentence be tagged as "citation needed" or perhaps it should be removed altogether? Tom Scavo (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the sentence to a subsection for convenience but the statement is true nonetheless for the following reason. The Plant List gives 50 accepted names, not counting lower taxa. Of these, 39 are known to correspond to North American species, which leaves 11 names, all of which have been shown to correspond to Asian species by including one or more suitable citations per species name. QED — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trscavo (talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Trillium'' species in Asia

message: The current description for the name-change of the subgenus Phyllantherum to Sessilium is wrong. Freeman didn't inadvertently validate Sessilium, he just accidentally ignored it, following the lead of other mid-century botanists. The cited paper explains this more fully. You might have conflated this with Freeman's incidental validation of Phyllantherum. The real reason for the change to Sessilium is simply that Rafinesque described Sessilium before he described Phyllantherum, even though, in characteristic Rafinesque fashion, he then proceeded to ignore his own prior work (as did pretty much everybody else). But regardless, I don't think we want to get too bogged down in the weeds in this encyclopedia article with the reasoning for the various recent name changes. None of the changes represented scientific disagreements, but rather mere corrections of historical errors in following a code of nomenclature. I'd propose that we consistently refer to the sessile-flowered subgenus, if we must refer to it with a name at all, with modern terminology (as subg. Sessilium), referring the reader to Phyllantherum once (since you occasionally still see this name used.) But given that separating out Sessilium results in a polyphyletic subg. Trillium, should we even be wading into this mess in the first place? And then what about subgenus Delostylis? Doppelbrau (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this up. I may have misinterpreted Reveal et al. but in any case, I don't really have a strong opinion on which name to use. I do think there's value in using subgenus nomenclature to organize taxa so I would be averse to dumping it altogether.  Tom Scavo (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Subgenus ''Sessilium'' nomenclature

message: There is a bad link here.  I don't know how to fix links, sorry!  The type specimen T. cernuum described by Linnaeus was actually T. catesbaei,[9]
This footnote 9 links you to the footnote section, but that footnote link goes nowhere (not bad link, just goes nowhere).
: The link is not bad, you're just clicking on the wrong thing. When you hover over "Barksdale 1938," the actual link to the reference should appear. Works for me. Tom Scavo (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad link

message: Documenting some edits to the taxa list so others can weigh in if necessary. T. delicatum and T. hibbersonii were added and removed. Neither of these taxa are recognized by even a single naming authority (TPL, WCSP, IPNI, or POWO) so there is no basis for inclusion. T. tennesseense was moved to a more prominent position in the taxa list. The IPNI recognizes this name but both WCSP and POWO list the name as a synonym. TPL does not list the name at all. I'm inclined to move the material on T. tennesseense back to where it was. Tom Scavo (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this topic covers multiple changes, I'll split them up in the talk page under separate headings. Doppelbrau (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: New taxa

message: I think we should include this species. Shouldn't the fine people of Tennessee be aware of a new and interesting discovery? I'm fine with noting that some databases regard it as a subset of T. lancifolium. As you noted, this is implied by POWO, for example, reducing it to synonymy within that species. We should trace that back to the source database that actually made the synonymy claim, though: USDA-NRCS. We should also note that the unknown editor of this database did not bother to give a reason for this reduction, or else we'd be dishonestly emphasizing one anonymous edit to a government database over other works. The other databases you list as rejecting T. tennesseense are either deprecated (TPL), or equivalent (WCSP, POWO, and IPNI are all Kew products that cross-reference one another; they are not independent works.) Additionally the Kew databases list the Melanthiaceae entries as "UR", meaning that they are "under review", and should not be taken as final naming decisions. Regional floristic works also accept the taxon (Weakley's Flora, for example), molecular databases (e.g. NCBI's taxonomy browser), and the USFS (they even wrote up a news article announcing its discovery). I don't understand why these focused secondary sources, authored by specialists and educators, should be discarded in favor of anonymous changes to a USDA database, which again, is ultimately the only source for the three claimed source-databases for the name's rejection (TPL, WCSP, POWO), which are actually just one source (Kew). Doppelbrau (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be clear. An entry for T. tennesseense already existed in the main article prior to the edit. The only question is whether this content should be moved to section "North American taxa" or kept in section "Other taxa". There are two reasons for not moving this content. First, the name Trillium tennesseense E. E. Schill & Floden does not enjoy the same level of acceptance as the other names in section "North American taxa" (for whatever reasons). Second, the inserted footnote is a hack that disrupts the flow of the species list. OTOH, section "Other taxa" is explicitly designed to handle non-list content. I'm inclined to revert this edit (but include the newly added citation). Tom Scavo (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  After doing some more research, I think it's possible to write a decent standalone article on T. tennesseense, which would address the second concern in the latter paragraph. This tips the scales for me. I'm okay with leaving this entry in section "North American taxa" as long as the footnote hack is removed. Tom Scavo (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay great! I'll make the list more visually in-line with other lists. I assume this is what you mean by a footnote "hack"? I'm not trying to "hack" anything. Are you referring to the superscript markup tags? These markup tags are from Wikipedia's own help page resources. Doppelbrau (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just created a stub for Trillium tennesseense. Please add content to the species-level article. Do not clutter the main article with details re T. tennesseense. Thanks. Tom Scavo (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm still confused, re: "hacking". Is this resolved? Am I being accused of something? The only detail I left on the Trillium page for T. tennesseense was a short note justifying its inclusion on the list, since that was previously in question. I've removed this note already (since that's been resolved). Thanks, and I suggest using a humble tone on Wikipedia talk pages rather than an imperious, commanding one. (I sometimes fall into this trap too, no worries). Doppelbrau (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   No, you are not being accused of anything. I carelessly used the word "hack" to refer to some wiki markup that has since been removed. The original issue regarding T. tennesseense has been fully resolved (at least from my point of view). Thanks. Tom Scavo (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Trillium tennesseense''

message: T. hibbersonii is a name regularly referenced in Trillium horticulture. I don't understand why my edit explaining that modern plant taxonomists regard it as a form of T. ovatum was removed. I could see horticulturalists looking to this page, which purports to list all the species, and being confused by its absence. Doppelbrau (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation provided for T. hibbersonii included a link but that page does not provide a description so I'm not sure what we're talking about here. I'll guess the name T. hibbersonii is used as a shortened version of T. ovatum f. hibbersonii, which is recognized by IPNI and accepted by WCSP and POWO. Forma hibbersonii is discussed in the article on T. ovatum. Recommendation: Do not include Trillium hibbersonii in the main article. Optionally redirect that search phrase and/or add a citation to the article on T. ovatum. Tom Scavo (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  My edit did not claim T. hibbersonii was a valid name. In fact, it did the exact opposite, so I don't understand the relevance of citing naming authorities, which, again, are not authorities, but rather mere databases. Your guess is incorrect about T. hibbersonii being an abbreviation. It's a nomen nudum that pre-dates the form designation. The citation that you removed showed, for example, that this name, despite it formally being incorrect, is in current use in the horticultural community. I'll go ahead and put it back in the article where it is more likely to be found, instead of on a page where you'd have to already know about it's synonymy to find it there. Doppelbrau (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Trillium hibbersonii''

message: This is a newly discovered species, so it would be very strange to find it in the four redundant databases cited above. Since the only source for its description is a single primary source, I feel like we're stuck either (1) ignoring an exciting discovery or (2) relying on that source and being transparent in the article with respect to its newness. I'd go with (2), personally. Wikipedia is supposed to be up-to-date. Doppelbrau (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: T. delicatum already dominates the article on T. decumbens so it is not being ignored. The question is how to treat it in the main article. Despite its lack of acceptance by independent naming authorities, perhaps we could list it in section "Other taxa" and link to the article on T. decumbens. Tom Scavo (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  on the contrary, Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable secondary sources say, not the latest primary research. Read WP:PSTS. We should be very cautious about including newly named species until its clear that they have general acceptance. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for directly addressing my question, . That's very helpful advice and I'd agree with that cautionary principle in virtually every other case (including, for example, the recently published Trillium georgianum). But in the case of T. delicatum, though, doesn't  it seem absurd to ignore such an obviously distinct new species? (have you checked the article?) It would be like finding a population of six-legged blue giraffes in a hidden valley on Papua New Guinea and pretending that they must just be typical African giraffes until a few decades go by and somebody finishes their review article on giraffes. The morphological distinctions, much less the genetic and ecological considerations, are just so glaring. Doesn't common sense factor into the decision for species-inclusion, especially in the absence of any published dissenting opinions? Doppelbrau (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  FWIW, I would support appending the following text (with a single citation) to section "Other taxa": "Trillium delicatum is the proposed name for a putative new species that resembles T. decumbens in general appearance." Tom Scavo (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Trillium delicatum''

message: We're not coining new names in this Wikipedia entry. "sp. nov." should not be used - instead you should refer to the authors of those species. This otherwise gives the impression that you are trying to take credit for their work. Doppelbrau (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. It is done. Tom Scavo (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  improper use of "sp. nov." 

message: To add to this article:  the etymology of "wakerobin." 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that common name was first applied to T. erectum but I don't have a good reference. Tom Scavo (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article