Talk:Ripogonum

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: page moved. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Rhipogonaceae →  – The original spelling of the genus is Ripogonum, and that is the spelling used by the standard references on the botany of the areas concerned i.e. Australia and New Zealand. See, for instance, IPNI/APNI. The assertion in the current article that the "website kept by prof Reveal" uses the spelling Rhipogonaceae is incorrect, and the website URL given is no longer valid. The page on Prof. Reveal's website is now  and shows only the spelling (family and genus) with Ri- not Rhi-. The spelling of this page title must be changed to conform to usage in the countries concerned. Also, alteration of the original spelling from Ri- to Rhi- is contrary to ICN Art. 60.3, as has been pointed out by Nicolson & Fosberg (2004) The Forsters and the botany of the Second Cook Expedition (1772–1775), Regnum Vegetabile 139. MisterCDE (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Support. IPNI is still confused about this, see this search. I haven't seen Nicolson & Fosberg 2004, but guess that adding the 'h' would date from a time when it was considered good scholarly practice to correct plant names according to their real or supposed Greek origins. The original spelling can be seen on plate 25 here, without the 'h'. Article 60 of the Code of Nomenclature is ambiguous about whether this is an orthographic error to be corrected, but example 1 shows a case where there is no evidence that the original authors didn't intended to use that misspelling, and as you say, 60.3 states that spelling changes should be rare. Since a majority of recent sources are using the spelling without the 'h', I agree that it is time for Wikipedia to follow suit. P.S. this has nothing to do with usage in the countries concerned, it is a matter for Code of Nomenclature, which is (so far) accepted by botanists in those countries. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is no technical reason that this page cannot be moved without admin help, I'll make the move, and then anyone who cares to can protest. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Good move! —--macropneuma 14:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm glad the "h" is gone, but WP:FLORA suggests that an article covering a monogeneric family should be at the title of the families only genus; in this case, Ripogonum (and that move is blocked for technical reasons). Plantdrew (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (Embarrassed burbling sound). That would be a good move. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are still 13 other articles that aren't redirects at :Category:Monogeneric plant families (and I just tackled a few), so it's not an isolated case. Not sure how many of those can be moved without an admin/technical request, or whether all are appropriately moved (I found one that was no longer monogeneric in circumscription, and one (Pterostemonaceae) that should remain as an article on a historically recognized family). Plantdrew (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So, there's no reason not to submit a move request for this one, then? A clear agreement here from all interested parties would be strong support for such a request. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have readied it for a simple technical move (request) (as much as i’m going to). A move request to the genus article (over the redirect and with this the family article redirecting to that). Unless a good lot of editing is proposed, to add much more material about the family, which would not be appropriate in the genus article, then this will be a good move to the genus. If much more family details should be added, then we should have two articles, one for the family and one for the genus. The upside of that, and in compliance with policy, is the likely chance of further changes to the family circumscription or existence, in the not too distant future, with increasing genetics studies, relationships detection and resolution. If that happens, it would then also be easier to link Ripogonaceae to a different or new family name or to edit the family article for its new circumscription which would likely have more genera. It is a recently described family so the latter is less likely. It is more likely to be sunk (hence become a redirect). Though, simplistically and idealistically, that depends on choice of type specimens; practically, conservation of older names and traditions has often trumped ideals. —further clarified, copyedited, and added one sentence—--macropneuma 14:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The technical move to Ripogonum is complete. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

text: IPNI will probably update in time, they have specialist nomenclaturists to advise, and many corrections happen in IPNI. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: This is original research:
:"^ The original spelling by Johann Reinhold Forster and Georg Forster was Ripogonum.[4] Because the Greek word ῥιπος begins with an aspirate rho rather than plain rho, classical scholars preferred to transcribe it with rh- rather than r-. Consequently, some early botanists treated the Forsters' spelling as an error to be corrected.[citation needed] However, ICN Article 60[5] no longer permits corrections of the original spelling such as this (Art. 60.3). (It is still recommended that the classical transcription rules should be followed when forming new names (Rec. 60A).) It has also been noted that the Forsters' spelling is likely deliberate and should not be liable to correction in the same way as an accidental typo would be.[6]"
What we need is not an explanation of why any Wikipedia editor thinks this is correct, but a citation from the literature using the correct spelling from a well-respected source after the Taxon publication. If this information from the ICN is published anywhere in relation to the rh/r discussion of the spelling of the name, then this can also be included. But, any Wikipedia editor's interpretation of the ICN and how it applies to this case is not relevant to Wikipedia and needs to be removed as original research. 
I read the above discussion, also, and it also amounts to original research. --AfadsBad (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rh versus R 

message: According to this reference Rhipogonum was described in Solander's unpublished manuscript Primitiae Florae Novae Zelandiae. Does anyone know if there is an online version of this manuscript?--Melburnian (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be unavailable to me here. A citation appears online as Solander DC (1782) Primitiae florae Novae Zelandiae. In ‘Floras of the countries visited by Captain James Cook’s first voyage’. pp. 381–620. (Botany Library, Natural History Museum: London). That might be a red herring, not an actual publication, because I can't find it in any library catalogue. A trek to London might be required, or to Auckland, as detailed here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for checking it out.--Melburnian (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Primitiae Florae Novae Zelandiae'' on-line?

message: This has become quite a nice little article. I'm reluctant to put tags on the section just yet, but the Uses section needs more refs if anyone can provide them. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a nice little article. I think the tags are offensive to the reader, but useful for the editor, and, as we have a couple of editors working on this, it's my opinion that tagging any problems you see would be beneficial to the editing process. --AfadsBad (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Don’t worry about the tiny number of readers (avg 10 real viewers/day –ref:) who are almost entirely us in the last few days! Add good quality tagging all you like. ——--macropneuma 13:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Welllll..... --AfadsBad (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Typical for relatively obscure plants articles. --macropneuma 14:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, an improvement on the 0.5 viewers per day this month last year... .--Melburnian (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: i smile … and thanks, from me, good citing edits. --macropneuma 14:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Well, we certainly don't write plant articles in the expectation of a large readership! (Flower is about the only plant-related article I've ever seen make it into the top 1000. Cactus surprised me in the past by its popularity, which is one reason why I did some work on it.)Is there any way of finding out the ranking in popularity of articles tagged as belonging to WP:PLANTS? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see the 500 most-viewed plant articles here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Popular pages. The daily view statistics don't always match those on stats.grok.se, but I assume the relative ranking is accurate. Plantdrew (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, very interesting! Thanks! I'd missed this page. It's a pity that the top five are all C class. I've been working on Banana, on and off. I don't believe that Aloe vera is still GA; it's had too many "pop medicine" additions/removals and has got rather disjointed. It might be good to work on the top ones. On the other hand, popular page = much vandalized page, which is annoying. No more here, because it's off-topic... Peter coxhead (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for Uses