Talk:Matteuccia

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Ostrich fern → Matteuccia struthiopteris — Consistency in page naming.—jaknouse (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Poll

• Oppose. Ostrich fern is an unambiguous common name. Andrewa (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral (change of vote). See discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Support (change of vote). I suspect that this naming convention will eventually come up for review again, but for now stick with what we have. Andrewa (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. WP:FLORA is clear here; this falls under neither of the exceptions. Conventions for birds are different, so irrelevant here. Ucucha 13:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, support move to Matteuccia as this is the only species in the genus, per WP:FLORA, 3rd exception. Ucucha 14:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • And, of course, ostrich fern will always go directly to the page anyway.jaknouse (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support move to Matteuccia, per naming convention. Guettarda (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Change to support Matteuccia struthiopteris, per Kingdon. Guettarda (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support move to Matteuccia as noted by Ucucha, falling under WP:FLORA guidelines for monospecific genera. --Kevmin (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support move to Matteuccia, per naming convention. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral (but not eager to dive into the common name wars) on move to Matteuccia struthiopteris but oppose move to Matteuccia, on the grounds that many authorities recognize three species in this genus. Kingdon (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the specifics, but the current article suggests that particular classification is obsolete; should the article text be changed? Ucucha 13:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The genetic analysis is clear that Pentarhizidium is a segregate genus, making Matteuccia monospecific.jaknouse (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying that the 3-species Matteuccia classifications are up to date, or consistent with the evidence. See the Gastony and Ungerer paper for lots more details, including how this family has been classified in a variety of recent classifications (in particular, table 1). The question is what, if any, accomodation we should make for an obsolete classification which seems to still be in use. Kingdon (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I would say that if this is the classification we're going to use, we should follow our convention to use only the genus name for monotypic genera, but put a statement in the lead to the effect of "M. struthiopteris is the only species in the genus Matteuccia; two other species previously placed in the genus are now classified in the separate genus Pentarhizidium, because molecular data indicate that they are not closely related to M. struthiopteris." Ucucha 16:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
          • The article already contains such a statement. If people think that implies the M. struthiopteris article should be at Matteuccia, it strikes me as workable. The right answer isn't really clear to me. Kingdon (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per current plant name guidelines. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

See also for example today's featured article, on the Splendid Fairywren. Andrewa (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see where this leads, but in view of the current naming convention at WP:FLORA, and the link there from WP:NC, I won't oppose the move for the moment.

It does seem a little ironic that this move was described as promoting Consistency in page naming, when in fact it seems to represent a departure from several key policies. Of course consensus can change, but the immediate result will be a reduction in overall consistency. If the eventual result is to revise the other tree of life conventions, only then will consistency be restored. Andrewa (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The naming convention for plants has been in use for several years. Since plants lack the sort of "formal common names" that birds, for example, have, it's really difficult to use "common names" consistently. Not only do many plants have multiple common names, very many have none. To make matters worse, the same common name is used for quite a few species. It's an unworkable mess. Hence our preference for scientific names. Guettarda (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is a difference in local and global consistency; here at least, the case that the current title violates local consistency (other plants are under the scientific name) is more clear-cut than that for global consistency (other articles do use "common" names). Note that the article mentions more than one vernacular name for this species. I think you'll find extensive discussions of this issue in the archives of WT:PLANTS. Ucucha 20:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Common and scientific names (again). Andrewa (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image not an Ostrich Fern

The image currently in the upper left corner, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Osterich_Fern_Foliage.jpg, does not appear to be an Ostrich Fern. It appears to be a Spinulose Wood Fern or related variety. 64.179.35.92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matteuccia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBIList2007.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110320233942/http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fg20020421rl.html to http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fg20020421rl.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Spore-bearing structures

"... , so named for the large spore bearing structures resembling ostrich feathers"

This claim implied that the specific epithet, struthiopteris, was based on the resemblance of the sporangia (spore-bearing structures) to ostrich feathers. No source was cited, and the claim conflicted with what is written in the "Description" section, in which it is explained that the common name, "ostrich fern", is based on the resemblance of the sterile fronds to ostrich plumes.

I have found and added a reliable source for the "sterile fronds" explanation, and removed the conflicting "sporangia" claim. Maidenhair (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)