Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

message: POWO and WFO place Limosella in Plantaginaceae. Accordingly I updated the categories for the article, but now I'm uncertain. Most other sources, including recent phylogenetic studies, have it in Scrophulariaceae. And there's tribe Limoselleae in Scrophulariaceae; presumably it would be renamed (Manuleeae?) if the type genus were no longer in it. Tom Radulovich (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't found any recent phylogenetic studies that place Limosella in Plantaginaceae. It used to be grouped with Gratiola (in Gratioleae or Gratiolaceae) and Gratioleae is now included in Plantaginaceae. Plantdrew (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! For now I left the genus in Scrophulariaceae tribe Limoselleae, with a note that POWO and WFO place it in Plantaginaceae. Tom Radulovich (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  APweb can be used as a source to support the placement of Limosella in Scrophulariaceae. There is a discussion of the background in the Phylogeny section of Plantaginaceae and Limosella is placed in Limoselleae] in Scrophulariaceae. Limosella doesn't seem to have been included in broad molecular studies. Ito et al (2015) only looked at Limosella species with a couple of related genera as outgroups, so the statement that the phylogeny and biogeogrpahy were inferred from molecular data needs qualifying. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limosella 

message: Hi everyone, I'm very new to this, and I've just had a go at my first plant article (in my sandbox). My mentor has already made some useful comments, but has suggested I run it past you. I'd really appreciate any help you can offer in this. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Links for the topic (Calendula palaestina, Palestine marigold) and relevant sandbox:. POWO has a record  (Calendula palaestina Boiss.) and there is an item on Wikidata (), which I've added to the . It passes the criteria for an article, with appropriate taxonomy, but I'll leave it to others to comment on the biological aspects. There are many stub articles with far less information.  —  Jts1882 | talk  19:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that: do you think I should just shift it to mainspace as it is? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calendula palaestina 

message: Can you tell us a bit about its region of origin and current distribution, please? 89.111.118.86 (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlikely, as you haven't given any indication of what plant "it" is. Choess (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution  

message: It would be great if you could comment at Talk:Agroforestry#Merge proposal Chidgk1 (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge a lot of articles into [[agroforestry]] 

message: Over on Wikipedia talk:Notability‎, several editors are working on a draft proposal to replace our current notability guidelines for species (all species are notable) with something much more restrictive (only species that go beyond certain limited pieces of information would be allowed their own articles). If you have opinions on this issue, now would be a good time to weigh in there. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential significant change to species notability