Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive14

message: I have recently created :Category:Plant images and placed :Category:Images of flowers under it and started populating these categories with apropriate images I have found on wikipedia. Plant images will need further subcategories but I haven't figured out what ones would be appropriate. I would like help in my effort to categorize plant images most have no category and if they were placed in an appropriate category they would be easier to find for people working on plant related articles. Irate velociraptor 06:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been done through commons:Category:Plants and commons:Category:Plantae, there's no need to duplicate the (huge) effort --Melburnian 09:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the images on Wikipedia that can't be uploaded to commons might need categorization, too. I had thought it might be inappropriate to create image-only categories on Wikipedia, but per Help:Image page#Categorizing images, I guess it isn't. So go for it. I think it's useful for the PD-US and fair use images that can't be uploaded to Commons and categorized there. (I have about 35 images from a 1908 monograph which is PD in the US but not in Germany so I can't put them on Commons. I had wondered about categorizing them, so now I'll probably create an image subcat.) --Rkitko (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plant images 

message: I've made some structural changes to the Plant article, and think they help to group the page's content into broad themes.  Please take a look at these changes and make suggestions, additions, etc.  Four major omissions I noticed as a result of doing this: (1) The article only mentions photosynthesis in the introductory paragraph and does not mention the ecological roles of plants as primary producers, oxygen factories, or structural compoenents of biomes, (2) No mention is made of plant cells, cell walls, or plastids, (3) No mention is made of basic plant structural organization: stem, root, leaf, (4) Only a brief mention is made of the alternation of generations or plant reproduction.  --EncycloPetey 04:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would order it life processes, or life history, then ecology, then importance.  Yes, I would add these sections, first of all, one on the basic plant structural organization, but not stem, root, leaf, because this is discussing all green land plants, not just vascular plants.  Yes, it needs a better section on the life cycle.  KP Botany 04:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While vascular botanists gripe that bryophytes don't have "real" stems, roots or leaves, mosses and liverworts have the same basic organization, probably as a result of the same genes.  In any case, the leaves of four major lines of vascular plants (lycopod, horsetail, fern, seed plant) evolved independently anyway (and probably twice in the ferns), so "leaf" does not refer to single homologous organ anyway.  Bryologists call the structures of a moss "stem" and "leaf". --EncycloPetey 04:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: ...and have added a diversity table with citations for the number of species in each division. --EncycloPetey 18:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Plant]] 

message: Hi, over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#CfD nomination there is a proposal to rename some botany related cats.  Could we have opinions from this wikiproject please ..., John Vandenberg 12:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  botany literature categorisation 

message: Bunch of problems with this article (for one thing, it's native to Mexico, not Europe)... no time this morning, but the articles on that genus as a whole are a bit thin if not counterfactual (don't have time to do more than leave a note this morning). All sorts of strange redirects too, so probably needs someone with admin tools to properly clean it up. --SB_Johnny | PA! 11:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the information in that article came from Petula oil (old version here), which was later merged & redirected to "striped french marigold".  Have no idea how reliable the information is, and most of it has been stripped out in the latest version.  (On doing some more checking, it seems that "petula oil" is a real thing and probably merits its own article separate from Tagetes patula, or at the very least some discussion in the Tagetes patula article.) MrDarwin 13:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've give it a bit of a clean up including redirecting it to the botanical name, fixing redirects, removing some copyvio sections and adding a couple of references, but some unsourced material remains and a lot more detail could be added. --Melburnian 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the view that T. erecta and T. patula are the same species common? (I'm assuming the current taxonomic consensus makes this paper mostly useless...) Circeus 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GRIN treat them as distinct species. Your second link I just get an error message, can you check the ref? - MPF 23:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was missing a slash after .org. Circeus 23:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Striped French marigold]] 

message: Hi all, 
I'm not an algae expert, but I've begun to make stubs for some taxa in the Chlorophyta, e.g., :Category:Algae taxonomic orders.  I'd appreciate any insights or suggestions that people here have on them.  They definitely need filling out!  :( Willow 01:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I finished the Chlorophyta, down to the level of genus — whew!  Any contributions or assessments from the experts here would be very welcome; thanks much in advance! :) Willow 23:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Want to tackle the Desmids?  ;) --EncycloPetey 16:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Pete!  OK, I think I've done the Desmids down to the level of genus.  Would you please look them over and tell me if they'e OK, or could be improved somehow?  Thanks! Suggestions of other taxa in need of filling in would be very welcome as well. :) Ta ta for now, Willow 20:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, though the taxoboxes you've used have kingdom "Viridiplantae" and division "Strptophyta".  While some taxonomists use that system, it would put all the land plants into the single division Streptophyta.  The convention currently followed on WP is to use kingdom Plantae (synonymous with Viridiplantae) and division Charophyta.  Still, with 5000 species of desmids, getting them down to the level of genus is pretty good! --EncycloPetey 22:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I can fix that, if you'd like, or I could devote myself to some other taxonomic family needing attention.  Is it a serious problem? Willow 22:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does create a problem when we're not internally consistent.  The average users will not know the intricasies of taxonomy and nomenclature.  It's better to head off the confusion and questions by being consistent. --EncycloPetey 01:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I fixed the Desmids, but now I should go back and fix all the Chlorophyta.  Would you please look some of them over and tell me if there's anything else I should change?  Thanks, Petey! :) Willow 13:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to do what I can thins weekend, but the current state of Chlorophyta classes and subclasses is not one of my strongpoints.  My own resources in that area are rather dated, and came out around the time the first angiosperm and major green plant molecular phylogenies were being published. --EncycloPetey 16:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chlorophyta taxonomy

message: This diff rather took me by surprise. It seems to me a pretty useful new category for this project. Hesperian 03:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting photos

message: Anyone know anything about fir and pine trees and their pests, I am working on some agricultural stuff about Christmas tree farming in my user space, see User:IvoShandor/Christmas tree farm, and have a sub-article about Christmas tree pests, essentially I am wondering if I should broaden the scope, or if pests only applies in terms of agriculture. Obviously, wild trees are affected by some of the same species (some invasive, some not) so in that case I would guess that the article might be off-topic. Also, looking for any photos of farms anyone might have. IvoShandor 07:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Christmas trees are specifically horticultural products and you might find more info under hort sources instead of ag sources, Balsam fir and Scotch pine are the two main trees used in North America. Pathogens that infect Balsam are many and varied including Black Mildew, several Blights, Cankers, twig Dieback, Mistletoe, Needle Cast, rots of the heartwood and roots, a number of different rusts. In the landscape they are relatively trouble free trees, in tree farms they can suffer when the branches or truck are damaged.  Since Christmas tree production involves intensive maintenance such as pruning these pests can be a problem with poor maintenance tecnequics and practices.  Pines even have more problems, with over 200 different pathogens identified in the US alone., though rust is the main problem and control mostly involves removing alternative hosts near the production area. Many of these pathogens are regional based, so production areas in the southern US will have different ones than those in other parts of the country or world. Hardyplants 09:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry I can't help, but what you have written so far looks great.  A big step up from the current state of tree farm, I'd say. Kingdon 15:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tips. I have found in the U.S. ag sources tend to have the lowdown, other countries it appears more horticultural. Different countries classify the product differently, in the U.S. I believe it is classified as an agricultural product, which is a relatively recent development if I am not mistaken. I would also note that the first part of the series I am working on is now in the main space at Christmas tree cultivation. I went with cultivation over farming so as to avoid confusion with the main Christmas tree farm article, which this one was spun off from. Most of the daughter articles will come first because once I realized how long it would be I had to spin it off and can't really complete the farm article until all the daughters are complete. If anyone wants to make any tweaks on the cultivation article, feel free, its up for GA and DYK. IvoShandor 18:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The the US department of Agriculture over sees all, they have a survey each year that records none Ag crops including christmas trees I believe.  I would get a copy each year after completing the survey but never had much use for it, I do not need to know how many acres of petunias are grown in Alabama. If you are doing research on Christmas tree production it would most likely be done with in the Hort department of a University instead of the Ag department. You have a nice article, are you involved in this field or did just pick this subject out of the blue?  Hardyplants 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd definitely venture the later, since Ivo's usual dwellings are history and architecture, especially in Illinois. Circeus 23:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct Circeus. : ) I was appalled when I went searching for this topic one day and discovered there was nothing here about it. Gasp! I needed a break from the strenuousness of history and architecture, the Black Hawk War was driving me positively mad. As for the horticulture stuff, thank you, I will delve into what I can find.IvoShandor 07:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Christmas trees

message: Could an admin please move this article to Veratrum viride?  There are so many common names for this plant (which I grew up knowing simply as "false hellebore") that the common name(s) should direct to the botanical name, and not vice-versa. MrDarwin 15:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. I actually am responsible for creating it in the first place. Circeus 16:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! MrDarwin 17:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Green false hellebore]]

message: Anyone have any information on the topic of this article? I was going to replace the taxobox with a cultivar infobox, but web sources aren't exactly clear - is it × herbeohybrida, a single hybrid, Calceolaria herbeohybrida with many cultivars derived from it, or an interspecific cultivar group? --Rkitko (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mabberley indicates that Calceolaria x herbeohybrida Voss has Calceolaria x hybrida Forbes as a synonym, but I have no other information. --EncycloPetey 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a Cultivar Group. I've added a bit more from RHSD. - MPF 16:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Rkitko (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Calceolaria herbeohybrida]] 

message: Don't know if anyone is familiar with this public domain image repository. Weeds and insects. IvoShandor 17:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Took a look; so far, more use to insect people than for plants, as the plant pics (unlike the insect ones) are under copyright - MPF 18:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Public domain images

message: I started doing the page for the family Jubulaceae, and noticed that the wikilink for the genus Jubula is for an owl. It seems weird that there would be a common name for an owl, and a plant, but whatever. What I want to know is if there is a standard for how to disambiguate the link to the Jubula genus of liverworts. Murderbike 23:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd create it as Jubula (plant).  It's actually not all that uncommon to find the same genus name used for both a plant and an animal.  WikiSpecies has a huge list of such names. --EncycloPetey 00:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is for the DAB, though. You just make the redirect page a DAB for Jubula (animal) and Jubula (plant).  There are a number of these, actually, where a plant and animal share the same genus name.  KP Botany 00:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (Edit conflict x2) Sigh... What KP said. Circeus 00:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've set up Jubula as a proper disambiguation page.  The page for Jubula (plant) has also been set up with a taxobox for the liverwort genus. --EncycloPetey 00:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I hate doing dabs.  KP Botany 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jubula]] 

message: Is there any point in making announcements on a subpage that isn't transcluded anywhere? Do you all have this page on your watchlists, or is posting there no better than piping to :/dev/null?
Anyhoo, Banksia telmatiaea is at FAC.
Hesperian 12:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like piping to /dev/null. Like /Peer reviews and /Collaboraton, I suppose ;-) Aelwyn 15:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Announcements]]

message: I made some minor changes in some family articles. Modern publications usually prefer using typified names for all the families, but I'd like to remind that, according to the last version of the ICBN , the names Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, Poaceae, Clusiaceae, Lamiaceae, Fabaceae, Arecaceae and Apiaceae are considered alternatives to Compositae, Cruciferae, Gramineae, Guttiferae, Labiatae, Leguminosae/Papilionaceae, Palmae, Umbellifeae and their use is barely permitted, not even encouraged. Aelwyn 18:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure where you're getting the interpretation that their use is "barely permitted".  The ICBN does not encourage the use of one name over the other.  "Cruciferae" and "Brassicaceae" are two different names for the same family; the use of either name is permitted and both are considered equally valid in a nomenclatural sense.  Although it's a somewhat separate issue, there is a strong consensus among botanists to use the typified (i.e., "-aceae") names.  MrDarwin 19:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From ICBN 18.6: The use, as alternatives, of the family names indicated in parentheses (the typified ones) in Art. 18.5 is authorized. Maybe "barely permitted" was a bad word choice (an unhappy word choice one would say in Italian), my intention wasn't polemic. In some articles (e.g. Lamiaceae) the "traditional" names were not even included, and in some (Arecaceae)) they were treated as common synonyms, which they are not. I know there is a consensus, but I wanted to point out that we can't forget the "law". Aelwyn 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be all well and good if we were a wiki dedicated to using the ICBN as the sole source of guidance. But we're an encyclopedia founded on an idea of consensus. The ICBN is still important and represents a partial consensus by those that prepare it, but I prefer to defer to the experts working in those areas of taxonomy and the larger academic consensus. --Rkitko (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree that both alternative names should be included; names like "Labiatae" and "Palmae" are still found occasionally in some references, and are quite common in older references. (In fact this subject might be worth an article in and of itself!) MrDarwin 20:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must have misunderstood the discussion when I read it the first time around. Disregard my earlier comment. I, too, agree any and all names applied to taxa should be included in the article (within reason - I'm working on some species articles in Utricularia that have pages and pages of synonyms in the monograph I'm using). The "traditional names" should most certainly be included in the text if they haven't been already. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICBN 18.5 & 18.6 

message: I've been seeing more maps like the ones in Dwarf Palmetto, Rhapidophyllum hystrix and Lagerstroemia purportedly showing the "adaptable range" of a species.  My first question is where these maps are coming from (in which case there may be copyright issues); if the maps are being produced specifically for Wikipedia articles, my second question is whether such maps represent "original research". MrDarwin 23:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good questions, but I'm more wondering about globalization.  If these plants are mainly cultivated in the United States, maybe it isn't a big deal, but for plants that are cultivated around the world, I would think that a written description (for example, mediterranean climate, hardiness zone, etc) would be easier to handle than a map. Kingdon 02:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're pretty much copied from University of Florida extension, e.g. Sabal minor (pdf file). They (having looked at the ufl maps before) are also absolutely cr@p in terms of realistic ability to grow the species, based solely on USDA hardiness zone number and taking no account of effects of climate at other times of the year. As such, yes, they are unproven claims, not based on actual observation of successful cultivation. I also agree with Kingdon about globalisation - any map made, should either just cover the native range (my preference), or should cover adaptation worldwide. I'd strongly recommend getting rid of them. BTW, on the subject of Rhapidophyllum hystrix, can anyone get a decent photo of one? Ideally in the wild. The only current pics are of one that's been hacked to bits by a madman, and a seedling - hardly representative examples of the species!! - MPF 11:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The USDA zones are useful but not for this type of exercise, as MPF states, there are many other factors that effect a plants ability to live somewere else.  I like maps that show general ranges of were the species are native too, thought they are often misinterpreted by people to mean that the species lives in the entire area covered by the shaded out portions of the map - thus maybe misleading. And the idea that one can guess were the plant might grow, is doubly misleading and I think best avoided.  Hardyplants 13:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I compared the map in the Wikipedia article to the map in the University of Florida article and they are not the same, not even particularly similar.  So again I'm wondering where the maps came from.  I put a question on the editor's talk page (including a link to the discussion here) but haven't heard back yet.  A map showing the native range might be useful (if such could be reproduced from a verifiable and non-copyrighted source and not as original research) but as they stand the "adaptable ranges" seem to represent pure speculation to me, particularly since the source of their information is not referenced. MrDarwin 13:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Adaptable range"

message: I'm trying to re-write the article about Inflorescences. My main source is still the German article I had shown you some time ago. The fist part was not very hard to write (still needs much copyedit), but I'm having problems in descibing drepanium, cincinnus, rhipidium and bostryx and unfortunately I can't find good examples to show them in 'real life' too. Can anyone please check my definitions (bottom of this page) before I go on? Any advice is very welcome! Aelwyn 13:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the terms used are alien to me. So I can't help you much, I am used to terms used to describe North American species but there is a whole world of other plants out there that I am ignorant of.  Drepanium is sickle shaped, I wonder what the difference is between this and scorpoid?  Cincinnus is a scorpioid cyme, thus as the flowers open the inflorescence unwinds, starts curled up. Rhipidium is a fan shaped structure with the flowers on branches of other flowers. Bostryx is maybe a reverse scorpoid cyme were as the flowers open up, the end of the rachis or stem curls around, ends curled up.  Good start on the translation, when your  post it live I can fill in some meat so to speak, if you want.  14:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course (I suppose I can fill in some meat means something good for me!). I really can't understand those terms, I think I'll be forced switch back to a simpler scorpioid-helicoid scheme unless help comes from a kind and knowledgeable plant guy. Thank you anyway Aelwyn 21:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Especially foliaceous bracts...!? I can look at in the few days...hopefully some others will before then.  Mono=one chasia = i am going to assume is the stem, so these might be describing flowers produced on only one side of a single branching rachis, then there is a top surface or a bottom surface were attachments can occur (or the side, which might be the fan shape) This is a guess. When time permits will see if something more definet can be gleaned from sources. Hardyplants 09:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A monochasium is kind of cyme. It is already in the article (Organisation > Simple inflorescences > Cymose infloresces), only there are four kind of monochasia that are much harder to describe. Thank you for your helpfulness. It's an important article and it may have errors and inaccuracies, so, once again, it needs to be reviewd by some experts before I put it in Wikipedia space. Thanks Aelwyn 19:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monochasial cymes 

message: After every one is done helping with the inflorescence article, I could use some major editing and some pictures and diagrams for the plant hormone page.  I have slowly been plugging away at the page and almost have it past a stub, but need editing.Hardyplants 09:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know enough about the subject to say whether you missed anything, but it seems like a well-organized treatment, with no undue weight on anything.  I did some copy-editing and wikifying, but I'm not too worried about that kind of thing - those skills are not as scarce here as the skills of knowing plant biology and having some references handy. Kingdon 18:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Plant hormones]] 

message: With the new article on inflorescences, are panicle, raceme, umbel and pedicel unuseful? Should they redirect to Inflorescence, like cyme? IMO, they should Aelwyn 09:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you ask me in the abstract, I suppose I'd favor longer articles which cover a subject, rather than short articles which are basically extended definitions.  In this case, however, if I wanted to know about a pedicel (or one of the other three), I'd probably be happier with those articles than inflorescence.  The photos are one reason.  The other one is that  inflorescence presents a lot of information which could easily be overwhelming.  One factor is that those articles might need work that no one wants to do, however (for example I noticed that Raceme links to Indeterminate growth which only down the page gets around to saying that indeterminate means something specific for inflorescenses).  So I don't know whether my first reaction of liking those articles is something to go with or not. One way to think of it is to think of Inflorescence as being in Wikipedia:summary style (or something similar).  That way articles like Panicle aren't so pressed for space; they can include multiple photos, a list of plant families which tend to have those kinds of inflorescences, comparison of similar forms, etc. Kingdon 12:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, they could be expanded on greatly and cover much more ground than the inflorescense page. There are many groups of plants that can show great variation in these structures and it would be nice to have that represented in the pages.  To me that is what makes life-forms so interesting is the variation with in the same organ over a wide group of organisms.12:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Err... you are probably right. But decriptions of corymb and thyrse should be deleted from panicle and, for consistency, each kind of inflorescence (at least cyme (botany)) should have its page. They are probably useful overall, but are rather unuseful as they are now. Thanks! Aelwyn 12:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usefulness of some articles 

message: Does anyone else think it's a problem for :Category:Christmas tree farming to be a sub-cat of :Category:Crops which is a sub-cat of :Category:Edible plants? Who eats Christmas trees? Murderbike 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well...what's a crop?  if you use the wide interpretation of something planted and harvested (even just harvested from the wild) as a crop, then it should belong.  A food crop is more specific, I am harvesting crops right now - seeds, they are not for eating but planting, but they are still a crop. Hardyplants 22:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've substitited :Category:Food crops as the subcategory for :Category:Edible plants instead of the broader category :Category:Crops. --Melburnian 05:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had that same idea at dinner tonight. Thanks! Murderbike 06:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edible? 

message: Three plant-related articles are currently nominated for :Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Collaboration of the Month.  These include cell wall, chlorophyll, and Arabidopsis thaliana (OK, so I nominated the last two, but they're still MCB topics).  All three of these articles are Top priority for WP:PLANTS, so keep an eye out in case one of these articles is selected. --EncycloPetey 01:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we have something similar here? I've signed all of them, but I consider Cell wall the most important. Aelwyn 07:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could try something like that, but I'd recommend something simple to start with.  That way, if we don't get a lot of participation, then we haven't wasted lots of effort setting it up. --EncycloPetey 12:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MCB Collaboration of the Month 

message: The categorisation of plant families (and perhaps some other ranks) is inconsistent. Some plant families are listed in , and others under various other subcategories of , and yet others in  itself. Lavateraguy 17:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think  is perhaps being misused. It seems to have been created for the different plant taxonomy systems and then overrun with other pages. I've removed it from articles before that didn't deal with plant taxonomy. It definitely needs to be cleaned up. --Rkitko (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some people confused its purpose with the similarly-named , which I created to remove species and genera articles from . Circeus 23:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help if someone added an introductory statement to the category explain what should and should not be included there. --EncycloPetey 23:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I'd like to start a stub for Chelone glabra (one of several dozen plants that are on the WV Bloom Clock but have no articles here), but I'm not sure what family it's in now (apparently Scrophulariaceae is no more?). I'll probably have similar problems with a number of other articles because of the rampant changes in taxonomy over the past few years as well, so would a taxonomically-up-to-date editor be willing to follow my stub creations over the next few months to correct my antiquated naming :-)? --SB_Johnny | PA! 11:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do that if you post a link to your stubs in my talk page (is there an automated way to keep track of your edits?), but you could also check it yourself at this page. Bye! Aelwyn 12:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aelwyn, you can put User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult on your watchlist. SB_Johnny's articles will show up there. --Rkitko (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks :). I realized after the first posting that there will be a lot of other issues regarding now-broken-up genera like Aster, Polygonum, and Chrysanthemum as well. There's also a couple plants logged from Mexico that I couldn't find anything at all about (the binomials might have typos or be using unorthodox taxonomy). --SB_Johnny | PA! 13:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aster is the camel that has broken my back on new names, now that most of the North American species have been moved to hideously unpronounceable genra (let alone spelling them) I have decided  to change my philosophy about common names from: "learn the scientific names they are consistent and every can look them up and know what plant you are talking about"....now its "learn the common names- at least they do not change".  Has there been any conses on Chrysanthemum yet...that one has been bouncing around a lot in hort, not even the trade gernals are consistent yet. I have pics for the turtle heads and scans of their seeds if you have a place for them.  Hardyplants 21:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <*grin*> Yeah, I get the feeling that whoever split up Aster had a grudge against Americans and their plants :)... nice thing about wikis is that we can just use redirects for the plain-spoken to find what they're looking for. As a rank and file commonist, I can only say that if you have pix you're willing to share, please share them! You never know when somone might need it. --SB_Johnny | PA! 22:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chelone glabra (and other taxonomically challenged stubs) 

message: There seems to be a great deal of confusion about the horse chestnut and certain bioactive/toxic chemicals extracted from it. One is called aesculin; the other aescin. The literature tends to speak of these as two different things, but it's unclear to me whether they are two destinct checmicals or whether one is a class of related chemicals, possibly including the other. I've made a stab at clarifying, but someone who knows the material ought to review it. I'd also suggest looking at the accompanying image which doesn't seem well-explained in the text. Mangoe 16:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Glucoside article says Aesculin is C21H24O13 (but doesn't give a structure) and  says that aescin (aka escin) is C55H86O24 (and does provide a structure).  So unless these are wrong/misleading, two different compounds (each one a specific compound).  I don't really know where to go to look up chemical structures - perhaps PubChem but I didn't play around with that (you could always ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals).  The Wikipedia article on Aesculin is missing a Template:Chembox - adding one (and writing a stub for aescin) would be one place to start. Kingdon 17:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the chemical structure of aesculin : see   ~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJan (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical issue in [[Aesculus hippocastanum]] 

message: I would like help copy editing and expanding the work I've done on the Plant physiology article (which was a stub).  In theory, all our project article collaboration discussion should happen on the Collaboration page, but that page has been little used in the past.  If you don't have Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Collaboration on your Watchlist, please consider adding it now.  --EncycloPetey 20:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Collaboration]] 

message: Hi guys - good work on the Top Stubs BTW :-) I've just come across Sago - which looks like it could do with some input from this Project.  At the moment that article is mostly about how to make sago starch, there's not much about the tree - but there's no separate Metroxylon sagu article.  Correct that - I've just created it as a redirect. :-)  I know there's lots of precedents for having separate articles for the product/fruit and the plant, but since we don't have one already I figure that in this case it's probably better to just have one article and splinter it if it gets too big. The genus article at Metroxylon is worse than stubby - it doesn't even mention M. sagu, although perhaps there's a good reason for that? But as a major tropical crop, this is definitely an important area to cover - over to you lot.... FlagSteward 21:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The absence of M. sagu from Metroxylon is because the latter was created by User:Polbot from the Red Data List - Sago, obviously, isn't endangered. I've gone and added a link. Lavateraguy 22:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started a separate article on Metroxylon sagu - MPF 10:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sago]] 

message: There's some idiotic disputing going on at Acer saccharum regarding conservation status and not whether or which common name to mention, but what formulation to use to do it. Input would be greatly appreciated. Circeus 16:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll certainly agree with "idiotic".  Comments on the talk page.  Thanks for bringing it up here rather than just continuing the edit war. Kingdon 22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Acer saccharum]], wording and conservation status 

message: :cross-posted on :Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Carnivorous plants 
I've just created an article on betalains.  I remember at a one meeting of the BSA (either the one in Ames or the one in Seattle) hearing that the Droseraceae and Nepenthaceae were in the same clade with the Caryophyllales.  I think it was at the same meeting that I first heard betalains had been found in these carnivorous plants.  However, I am having trouble finding a journal citation.  Can someone help? --EncycloPetey 06:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of information about betalain and the Caryophyllales in Molecular phylogenetics of the Caryophyllales with an extensive cited literature. The information you seek is probably somewhere there. JoJan 08:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I checked that article.  It does cover phylogenetic relations, but still holds that betalains are restricted to the 10 families mentioned by Cronquist. --EncycloPetey 14:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Betalain citation needed 

message: Congratulations, all. We've made it past the 25,000 mark on the number of articles within our scope! 25,000 down, so much more to be done. --Rkitko (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  25,000 and counting 

message: I note that Gertrude Jobes' book Dictionary of Mythology Folklore and Symbols includes information on different birthday flowers for each day of the year, with a little info on the supposed significance of each flower. Do the members of this group think that there would be sufficient importance to this to merit an article? John Carter 16:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on whether this is more widespread than just one book, I suppose (either in terms of others writing about it, or applying it).  Also see articles like Language of flowers (and we might have others, but I'm not sure). Kingdon 16:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I regret to say I have no way of knowing whether it is mentioned by others, or even, according to the text, what tradition it's based on. The text doesn't say one way or another. I think I'm going to start the Birthday flowers article, listing the names of the plants and the meaning ascribed to them, and inserting their symbolic meaning, and let your project and the mythology project know about it. Those two groups might know best how to proceed from there. And, as a member of that other group, I'll look for additional references in the various available references and try to find some more substantiation. John Carter 16:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't find a whole lot, other than (a) florists clearly see birthday flowers as a sales opportunity (whether this means picking a different flower for each day of the year is not as clear, and whether florists invented the whole thing is also not evident - it is hard to do much google searching when every florist web site has the phrase "birthday flowers" on it), (b) a book review of the Jobes at , (c) a certain amount of scholarly literature on "fakelore" or "folklure" (search for those words on google scholar for example), which may or may not discuss birthday flowers (I was just browsing abstracts and such, not full text).  Birthday flowers do seem to be widely enough discussed that they warrant an article, though, but it would be nice if someone can dig up a bit more on where the custom originated, how widely practiced it is, etc.  Anyway, the mythology folks can perhaps help more than we can on such matters.  For WP:PLANTS purposes, it is more just a question of whether we can correctly identify the flowers mentioned.  Might serve as an interesting exercise to see whether we have articles for most of the commonly sold/cultivated flowers. Kingdon 17:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ebenezer Brewer mentions a bit about it, not sure where. Perhaps in one of the many editions of Phrase and Fable, or in his other works. Cygnis insignis 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Books.google returns a 1913 American book with a one-per-month birthday flowers list. A 1921 book of etiquette says to give the birthday flower, whichever it is, prominence at the party. Several "birthday flower" and "birthday flowers" results, sometimes referring to flowers given on birthdays, but often times to specific flower species for a given month or date. In this 1878 story a character says "the orange-blossom was her birthday flower; for fifty years I have never failed to gather her a bouquet of them on her birthday." (In references like that, it's not always said why a species is a person's birthday flower; maybe it went by date, month, or was somehow assigned/chosen in childhood). An 1883 ad for a British book called "Birthday Flowers: Their Language and Legends," with color illustrations for every day of the year, includes in its length description: "This sumptuous and elegant Birthday Book is the first in which our floral treasures have been laid under really effective contribution." The earliest mention of the book in an 1875 ad; it seems tied in with the Victorian-era Language of Flowers. -Agyle 23:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, much more to the point than anything I found. Kingdon 12:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthday flowers? 

message: Shouldn't this be moved to Wikibooks?  It looks more like an embryonic field guide than an entry for an encyclopedia. --EncycloPetey 22:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, but might not be worked on though, as there are not a lot of "plant people" on wb as there are on wp. The bloom clock on wv is pretty much a dichotomous key as well (in fact the "key" part of it will eventually be imported to wikibooks), and wikibooks could make similar use of the DynamicPageList extension if someone wanted to work on it (DPL is a category-sorting extension that apparently will never be permitted on wikipedia due to the server load it entails, but it could be set to find, e.g., all plants with simple leaves, opposite leaves, smooth above, hairy beneath, 10 stamens, etc). --SB_Johnny | PA! 11:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, for accuracy it should be moved to Identification of trees of the eastern United States.--Curtis Clark 14:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Identification of trees of the United States]]