Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive4

message: Can somebody look up Echinochloa crus-galli and Echinochloa crusgalli ? Circeus 18:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The former is correct. I set the latter to redirect.--Curtis Clark 03:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought, but I couldn't set aside the slim possibility that they might both be somehow valid. Circeus 04:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonymy mix-up? 

message: My comments:
*The use of binomial nomenclature names makes Wikipedia inaccessable for the majority since categories will give lists of the scientific names and not the common name. See :Category:Trees of New Zealand as an example.
**This is a misuse of the category tag. It is possible to do, for example, Coast live oak even if the article were Quercus agrifolia.
*Use the binomial name if no common name exists.
*If a plant is endemic the common name should be used.
**Disagree. Many plants have only "constructed" common names, often a translation of the scientific name. These should never be used as article names unless the name is used in official lists, e.g. of endangered species.
*If more than one common name exists for a plant the most common one is to be used.
**See what happened with Cytisus scoparius. The most common name in western North America is a slur in Scotland.
*Indigenous names, if not the same as the common name, should be redireted to the main article of the species as well as being noted in the article.
**If it is an English indigenous name, it is the common name, for the purposes of Wikipedia. Non-English indigenous names should only be used (and only as redirects) if they are known in English usage.
*If there is more than one common name only the commonly used common names should be redirected to the main article. Disused names should be noted in the plant article but not redirected unless notable.
**Agree.
*Pages that discuss plants in a genus should use the binomial name but a common name should be listed in the article as well. If there are numerous common names this rule does not apply. In this situation the article name would be the binomial name and all the common names mentioned in the article and/or redirected to it.
*Plant names for invasive plant or introduced plant articles should be named after the name used in their country of origin. Names used in other parts of the plant's current range, where diffeent to the counrty of origin, should be redirected to the main article.
**This is a prime example of the value of using a scientific name. Cytisus scoparius is a good example.
I think the category rules, although they too need to be addressed, are not germane to this discussion:
*Cosmopolitan plants should not not be allocated to any category for a country's flora unless notable. This would clutter up the main article. An example is bracken which is found on every continent except Antarctica.
*If a plant is found in less that about three countries it sould be included in the appropriate flora categories for those countries.  If common names differ for the same species between the countries the appropriate redirect page for the common name should include the flora category. For example Wineberry (New Zealand) should be in :Category:Trees of New Zealand rather than Aristotelia serrata.
--Curtis Clark 04:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alan Liefting 10:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Here in New Zealand indegenous names and English names are sometimes used interchangeably.  There has been a trend over the past 50 odd years towards using the indigenous names rather than the English names. My preference for article naming convention (which I have been using) is to:
* use the most common name, regardless of whether it is English or Maori, for the article name.
* redirect the alternative (English/Maori) name to the article.
I also include the alternative name in the article. Alan Liefting 10:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indigenous names

message: Many plants have only "constructed" common names, often a translation of the scientific name.
Once again here in New Zealand we have many endemic plants with common names.  The common names are generally Maori but they are used by Pakeha.  Therefore we should remove English from your stategy that reads  Plants that are restricted to a single region and that have only a single English common name in wide use in that region.
::Alan Liefting 10:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Endemic plants

message: Any thoughts on these? I've just renamed an article to Lilium "Stargazer". Other possibilities would include Stargazer Lily, Lilium 'Stargazer'. Imc 19:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Garden hybrids

message: If a plant is native to more than one counrty it may be advisable to use the binomial name as the main article and redirect all common names to it. An exception would be if it is notable in a global sense in one particular country. Alan Liefting 11:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say "native or naturalized" since invasive species are often given different names outside of their native range. -Rkitko 14:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Even within one country there may be numerous common names. Weedy plants in particular often have long lists of regional names. (In some old herbals, these are actually called "country names" (meaning rural, not national). The linnean structure was created in part to create a neutral language... shouldn't we try using it? SB Johnny 11:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To some extent the Linnaean system has been a failure, in that even after 200+ years, nonscientists have only partly adopted it. Try talking about Bellis or Aquilegia, even in your neighborhood nursery, and you'll get a puzzled look and a search for the resident expert. Of course, plenty of other names are current - around here you'll always see Euonymus or Clematis rather than any English names. (As I mentioned above, the real litmus test is whether it seems reasonable to use the Linnean name throughout the article's running text, not just as title.) Stan 14:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but your comment there definitely has a regional POV (no offense) :). Around here, everyone says Aquelegia... the puzzled looks would arise if you said "Columbine". I don't think Linnaeus really intended it for the use of non-scientists, so that's not really a failure. It's really that when people look up something on wiki, they're seeking knowledge about the thing, and an important part of that knowledge will be it's scientific name (which allows them to research further, etc.). As I've said elsewhere, it really doesn't matter much... as long as the end user gets to the information they're looking for, who cares what the name (ie. URL) of the page is? What naming the page using the scientific name does is allow the editors (you and me) to get around easier and make the articles better. SB Johnny 16:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about regionalism! Actually, Linnaeus did intend for general use, because in his day science was largely an amateur part-time activity, and for instance it was not unusual for educated persons to engage in a bit of plant and animal collection while on trips and such. (He chose Latin because it was the usual second language of educated people.) Keep in mind that allowing editors to "get around easier" is very much a secondary mission, versus allowing general readers to get around easier - but in practice, I think most common names will end up being disambiguators, as people collect all the random names that have been used (fish people have it easy, they now have a multilingual database of common names used for each species). Just today I was in a confused conversation where "bird of paradise" meant completely different genera to the participants. Stan 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to be botanically NPOV!

message: Please see Template talk:Botanist if you know how to edit templates - thanks, MPF 00:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Botanist template: Edit request

message: Just a quick question--what sources use the term Canadian Dwarf Cornel for Cornus canadensis??  I have never seen this term used (except here).  In Canada, all sources I've ever seen refer to it as "Canada bunchberry" or simply "bunchberry."  Perhaps one (or both) are local vernacular names.
Help in solving this question is greatly appreciated.
--chris 19:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sander's The Flower Garden (sixth edition, 1935), published in London, UK, gives the common name as "Dwarf Cornel". I suppose "Canadian" has been added to distinguish it from the Eurasian Dwarf Cornel Cornus suecica, not mentioned in the book.--Melburnian 09:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't take long with google to find plenty of pages showing that both C. canadensis and C. suecica are both sometimes called bunchberry, and both sometimes called dwarf cornel - not surprising, as the two are very similar to each other. They are both titled at their scientific names now - MPF 22:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works!  --chris 16:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Dwarf Cornel? 

message: Pretty confused there: Lycopersicon (the old name for a few species of Solanum) currently redirects to Tomato (as in garden tomato, missing currant tomato, and leaving cherry tomato out of the loop). Probably will just go ahead and make Lycopersicon a disambig, then add redirects from the old species names. I'll also add categories to the redirects, following my sense of the conversation above.
My question is, why is the category "Solanales" rather than Solanaceae? Should I just create the category and re-tag members of the family to the new category? SB Johnny 12:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I should add that there is at least one other old member of the genus... see this [USDA database page]. SB Johnny 12:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The main reason that the article is in an order catis that, for the most part, plants were never broken down to the family levels. Part of the reason is that fewer plant articles exist than animal ones. Feel free to break these categories Circeus 12:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do then. But what's the general feeling about putting category tags on redirects from now-defunct genera/species? SB Johnny 14:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not a good idea. If it is a legit genus, there's nothing saying you can'texpand it back into an article, though. Circeus 14:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like this will be OK then? SB Johnny 14:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A mess of tomatoes... 

message: First, just wanted to announce the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Horticulture_and_Gardening, which was started a while ago, but I was not aware of the Plants project at the time, so didn't announce it.
I've created a new wikibook called A Wikimanual of Gardening on our sister site, in the hopes of clearing up the "how-to" problems involved with many of the plant and garden pages. I will watch this book and try to keep on top of it, but help would be greatly appreciated. For information on transwiking to this book, please see the chapter Chapter on transwiking. The goal is to preserve "how-to" information from plant articles, while avoiding "dumping" of book fragments (wikibookians don't like that). SB Johnny 17:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New project, and a wikibook 

message: Getting used to this. Trying to spruce up Banksia page Cas Liber 02:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put a lot of work lately into Drosera, Pinguicula, and the recently completed Sarracenia.  The page on Carnivorous plants is also looking pretty good, as is Nepenthes rajah (although this one is a bit long... might want to ask the authors what their plans are for this page, as it is continually being improved (minor changes, mostly)). --NoahElhardt 01:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidates for Featured Articles anyone? 

message: Please see Category_talk:Caryophyllales (I forget how to link to the cat without having this page come up on it). There are genera listed as subcategories to the order, while families are listed as simple pages. I'll try to work on it, but it looks like a big job. SB Johnny 10:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really odd category needs cleanup... 

message: You might want to know that a RFC has been opened regarding User:Brya's POVediting, MoS violation and general attitude at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Brya. Circeus 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Brya]] RFC 

message: I'd like to create a "hortibox" template (similar to the taxobox) with information about growing conditions for cultivated plants (see comments here for details). I went to the template for the taxobox and found a warning saying it was quite complicated, so decided I'd better ask for help from more compitent hands. SB Johnny 16:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help with a template! 

message: I've found a large public domain repository of North American plant range maps from USGS . These might be worth uploading, especially those plants with wide ranges. I've already uploaded and inserted some of the Abies range maps into the articles. SCHZMO ✍ 12:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range maps 

message: I doubt this image's identification as Red clover, see commons:Trifolium pratense:
*Flowers have pointy petals
*Leaves are longer and much less round
*Leaves are paler and lack the distinctive v-pattern of T. pratense
Circeus 03:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Trifolium medium. I've corrected the ident on the pic at commons and removed it from the Red Clover page - MPF 21:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mislabelled trifolium? 

message: Hi, I have created a User Box for WikiProject Plants.  Please feel free to use it template:User WikiProject Plants.
Are there any objections to my adding this user box to our main project page?
I noticed that on our stub articles we have a standard plant stub template.  What are your views on adding a link to this project that invites people to join as a few WikiProjects seem to do?  Eg. The Mixed Martial Arts project see this article; Evan Tanner.
If you also look at the discussion page of talk:Evan Tanner you will see that they also have a project banner on the article.  What are you views regarding this project doing soemthing similar?  This would help to direct people to this WikiProject to either join and then help us make our articles better or to ask advice and guidance.
Thanks Lynnathon 09:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Box and other bits and bobs 

message: I've created a prototype of a "plant infobox" template at User:Schzmo/Infobox Plant. This may be useful as a quick reference to readers who only want to know general characteristics of some plant without having to read everything. I only know basic template syntax so it's pretty simple right now. This infobox would probably be most useful for trees and shrubs. SCHZMO ✍ 12:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe combine that with this Horticulture infobox template? --  SB Johnny 12:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: (Sorry, see it here) SB Johnny 12:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, then we might have too much stuff in templates and that wouldn't look nice. SCHZMO ✍ 14:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The  is already present on almost all pages. This risk cluttering them unnecessarily. Circeus 14:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I worry about that too, though Schzmo's addition might be more poignant than the "hortobox" for general WP usage. SB Johnny 16:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just now took a look at the plant infobox, and my impression is that it includes seemingly arbitrary parts of a full plant description. What about inflorescence type? Flower color? Habit? Leaf margin? It has the advantage of forcing descriptions to be parallel (something that is useful for species in a genus or genera in a family, but less so for species in a family), but for any given group it may leave out the most important features.--Curtis Clark 16:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plant infobox? 

message: If a plant has two or more common names that are equally common, then the scientific name is to be used.
For example, Trachycarpus fortunei has two common names that are in equally common usage; Chusan Palm which tends to be used in Britain, and (Chinese) Windmill Palm which tends to be used in the US. SCHZMO ✍ 15:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I'm in favor of using the scientific name in most cases, I obviously support this.--Curtis Clark 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That would make sense. Circeus 16:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposed addition to naming conventions 

message: The update according to Mabberley will try and present a consensus of a much greater group of botanists. As the book has not yet been published exact details are not known. However according to a prepublication it will differ from strict APG II in that
# it will promote some families to be their own order Boraginales, Buxales, Vitales. This has already been done at the AP-website and the NCBI Browser
# it will replace names such as eurosids I, eurosids II, euasterids I, euasterids II by their more user friendly equivalents fabids, malvids, lamiids and campanulids (introduced by Bremer & al, 2002[?]). This too has already been done at the NCBI Taxonomy Browser.
# It will assign an old fashioned rank. In this case the rank of class will be assigned to the seed plants Spermatopsida (cf ToL, which also uses this name).
# it will recognize the ANITA group.
A taxobox could look like this
[Leaving out divisio for the moment, this might be what Mabberley will use for the vascular plants, likely Tracheophyta]
The above examples give the species names only once, rather than twice as in the example taxoboxes on the project page. I can think of no reason why the species name should be echoed. Brya 17:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mabberley

message: I just noticed that the German Wikipedia seems to have formal taxon names for clades (see Papaveraceae for example). Do any of you know what system they use? If not, I'll research it.--Curtis Clark 04:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The taxonomy above the ordinal level is evidently from Sitte, Peter; Weiler, Elmar W.; Kadereit, Joachim W.; Bresinsky, Andreas; Körner, Christian: Strasburger - Lehrbuch der Botanik für Hochschulen. 35. Aufl. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg 2002, . The whole classification is here. It's still not clear where they got such names as Rosopsida, though.--Curtis Clark 04:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the German wikipedia is using formal names. Apparently it is an amalgamation of Strasburger / APG II / AP-Website. I have been looking for a copy of Strasburger to get exact details, but this is not a popular book around here.  On the whole it looks to be original research as well, but I have not enough hard facts to ascertain how bad it is. Brya 15:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it interesting that you refer to a book by some of Germany's top plant systematists as "bad". I, too, don't have the book at hand, but my impression from looking at the German Wikipedia is that Strasburger provides formal names for most of the supraordinal clades in APG II. The Strasburger classification seems to be in wide use in non-Anglophone Europe; it should be noted, though, that APG lists Rosopsida as a synonym of Rosales, and Reveal uses it for a group that others might call a subclass. There was also a lengthy discussion about Rosopsida on  the TOL talk page.--Curtis Clark 17:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly I made no comment regarding Strasburger, a book I have not even seen. The German wikipedia is using a system which is put together from three different sources, one of them a website that changes from day to day. There is almost certainly original research involved, but as I said I cannot judge to what degree until I see more detail. Brya 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: German wikipedia