Talk:Medusagyne

From photos found on google it doesn't seem that the stamen of this flower possess any of the characteristics of a jelly fish, the seed pods, on the other hand, are very much medusoid in their appearance.

193.128.240.54 15:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC) In fact, it is the gynoecium that is "medusoid". It has up to 25 stalked, capitate stigmas.

193.128.240.54 15:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The African Lion (Felis leo), is...

The way we do it is like this "The African Lion (Felis leo), is...". We don't do it like this "Felis leo, (the African Lion), is..." Please see WP:COMMONNAME with regard to the move. I'm re-doing it today. Chrisrus (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. See WP:FLORA. Google Scholar searches turned up more results for Medusagyne than "Jellyfish tree", meaning that the scientific name is the most commonly used name in reference to this entity in reliable sources. See also WP:BRD - the bold, revert, discuss cycle: you did a bold move, I reverted, now we discuss. You should not re-do the move as you did. It should remain at the existing title until consensus can be reached. Or you could choose to use the requested move process. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 17:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I discussed, you did not, until now. I discussed on the talk page and you did not. Turn your accusatory finger around.

Google Scholar articles are not usually aimed at the general reader, as Wikipedia articles are. They are written with experts in mind, while we have to keep our likely reader in mind. Generalized Google searches show that the name of this plant in English is "Jellyfish Tree" in articles like this one which are intended for the common people, although the taxon is often put in parentheses. I see nothing in WP:FLORA that trumps WP:COMMONNAME.

I will wait the appropriate amount of time and then do it again. Chrisrus (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The point is not that you posted here first; the point is that you began a move revert war. Making a bold move is fine! Being reverted for good reason is fine! Re-reverting is not (as you're threatening to do again). Using Google Scholar is one of the acceptable ways to determine the criteria laid out at WP:COMMONNAME: "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources" (emphasis mine).

Medusagyne at Google Scholar: 216

"Jellyfish tree" at Google Scholar: 26

Medusagyne at Google Books: 888

"Jellyfish tree" at Google Books: 117

The regular Google results are fairly well polluted with plenty of hits from a band that shares the same name as the plant. That's why we prefer Books and Scholar to provide evidence on what reliable sources refer to the species. WP:FLORA doesn't "trump" WP:COMMONNAME - it is a guideline that is helpful in understanding these distinctions with respect to plant taxa and is fully in line with it, which is why most plant taxa are titled at their scientific name. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 18:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

There are millions of hits on regular old "Google" searches, only a few of which are about an obscure band by the same name. The reason the "scholar" hits are more is that those articles have a different audience than this article. Please admit that those articles have a different audience than this article, and that this article is written for the general reader, not for other experts. In order for the article to be good, it has to be tailored to the audience that it's intended for, and not for experts. Most people might be inclined to read and enjoy an article about the jellyfish tree, but reading an article about the Medusagyne oppositifolia, which is lame and boring for the people. Do you care primarily about the reader or about the writer? Chrisrus (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be great if you could recognize that a generalized Google search returns hits in sources that aren't reliable and that a mixture of entities using the same name is polluting the results, as I've demonstrated. What you've failed to admit is that the Books and Scholar searches better approximate the common name for this species in reliable sources as WP:COMMONNAME says we should do. It doesn't matter one bit that you think the current title is lame or boring - it's already quite clear that it's the most common name, so let's move on, shall we? Rkitko ^(talk) 22:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"Jellyfish tree" is the name most commonly used in a primary way in texts written for a general audience. The WP:RSes that you speak are supposed to used as references, not emulated for style; we write for the people. It would be great if you would recognize that what this entire project is really all about. Chrisrus (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your assertion is not supported by the evidence. Certainly you could not argue that the Google Books hits favoring Medusagyne are the result of specialist publications. Regardless, that's a moot point. This is a way to determine what the most common name is in reliable sources. Clearly Medusagyne is preferred, so the article already is "for the reader!" For more evidence, let's look at the Google ngram, which found mentions of Medusagyne but didn't even locate "Jellyfish tree" in any capitalization at all in English language books! The evidence is overwhelming that this is the correct WP:COMMONNAME title. I won't continue this futile discussion since it's not productive; you aren't being swayed by the fact and seem to have a hard time admitting that you're wrong about this. That's fine, of course, but if you want to pursue another WP:RM that ends in failure, please do so. My only contribution to that will be to oppose with a summary of my comments above. Rkitko ^(talk) 17:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your research methodology must be faulty, because I was quickly able to find many books aimed at a general audience (and even some textbooks for students) that do it the obvious way such a text should:

• books.google.com/books?isbn=1841624063, Seychelles by Lyn Mair, Lynnath Beckley - 2012 says: "Occurring on the drier glacis slopes of Mahé are a few specimens of a most unusual tree, the jellyfish tree, Medusagnye oppositaefolia..."
• books.google.com/books?isbn=1845374398 Seychelles "Seychellois is home to the total world population of both the bwa-d-fer (ironwood) and the jellyfish tree,..."
• isbn=113655419X The Ethical Travel Guide: Your Passport to Exciting Alternative... Paul Tingay - 2006 ... Seychells is home to the total world population of both the bwa-d-fer (ironwood) and the jellyfish tree,..."
• isbn=0385673515 The Fruit Hunters: A Story of Nature, Adventure, Commerce and ...Adam Gollner - 2010 - "The jellyfish tree's stigmas resemble tentacles."
• isbn=0199292051An Introduction to Molecular Ecology - Page 136 Trevor John Clark Beebee, Graham Rowe - 2008 - "The jellyfish tree Medusagyne oppositifolia, endemic to the Seychelles, seems to have persisted for thousands of years ..."
• isbn=0801861152 Patterns of Distribution of Amphibians: A Global Perspective - Page 492 William E. Duellman - 1999 "Several peculiar endemics such as the Coco de Mer (Lodoicea maldivica) and Jellyfish Tree (Medusagyne oppositifolia) suggest long isolation of the islands (Vine, 1989; Kingdon, 1990)...
• books.google.com/books?id=4jkuAQAAIAAJ Spectrum guide to Seychelles - Page 252 Camerapix - 1991 - Snippet view "The Seychelles jellyfish tree can perhaps only truly delight the eye of a botanist."
• books.google.com/books?id=JSwuAQAAIAAJ Seychelles - Page 95 Peter Vine - 1989 - "The Jellyfish Tree, Medusagyne oppositifolia, is an example of a primeval species. Interestingly enough, it does not occur in the damp, humid rain-forest for ..."
• books.google.com/books?id=6dBKAAAAYAAJ Plant Talk - National Tropical Botanical Garden - 1995 - "For a different reason, the future of the Jellyfish Tree (Medusagyne oppositifolia), sole member of the family Medusagynaceae, is also uncertain. This curious species was thought to be extinct until a few trees were found in 1971."
• isbn=1874041008 Beauty of Seychelles - Page 13 Adrian Skerrett, Judith Skerrett - 1996 "One of Seychelles' greatest curiosities, the jellyfish tree, bwa mediz, is so unlike any other that it had its own genus..."

That's ten. I could continue, this goes on and on like this. But ten is a lot more than your claim of zero for the number of books using the terms in this way, the way that texts such as Wikipedia which are aimed at a general audience should, that this claim is false. I guess you must have left books aimed at a general audience out of your search for some reason. Chrisrus (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

See Google Ngram Viewer for an explanation before accusing me of bad faith. The ngram viewer database doesn't include phrases found in less than 40 books at the time the database was compiled (2008). There were exactly three books that matched the search "Jellyfish tree" prior to 31 December 2008 in Google Books. The phrase appears to have been applied after the species was named, referring both to the genus name and the shape of the fruit. And it's only recently been used in more books. Medusagyne is still clearly the most commonly used name in reliable sources. The WP:GHITS are good evidence of that. Rkitko ^(talk) 17:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

First, you have no call to accuse me of not assuming good faith. Scroll up and read it again and you will see I did nothing of the sort.

Second, given what you've said, it seems like calling it "Medusagyne oppositifolia (the jellyfish tree)" is less up-to-date than calling it "the jellyfish tree (Medusagyne oppositifolia). When names or stylistic practices change, we should follow suit in a timely way, not wait until enough new books have been printed for the new books to outnumber the old books because doing so will cause us to be unnecessarily out of date for a potentially very long time.

Third, we should follow the convention of those books written for the same audience Wikipedia is written for, a general audience. How many of these WP:RSes that call it "Medusagyne oppositifolia (the jellyfish tree)" instead of the other way around were written for specialists and how many for a general audience? Because based on what I've seen so far, it's pretty clear that those modern books which are intended for a general audience use the term "jellyfish tree" in a primary way; at times even exclusively. Our job is not to use the peer-reviewed scientific papers as a stylistic model, but as references for an article written by us in a style appropriate for a general audience. Same info; different style. Chrisrus (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Explain the 771 more items in the Books search (7.6 fold difference) and the 190 more items in the Scholar search (8.3 fold difference) that use the term Medusagyne than those that use "jellyfish tree". If these reliable sources were writing for a general readership - and oh, yes, many of them are - and they include a mention of the genus but not of the supposed "common" name, then why do so many results not even mention the vernacular name? Here's a list of 835 Google Books results for a search on Medusagyne that excludes results with the term "jellyfish tree." Again, it's clear that the scientific name is the most commonly used name. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and cannot determine now if the vernacular name will become more popular later or even if that happens whether "jellyfish tree" will remain a common name. There's a very good case to be made against switching to the newest vernacular name, especially in cases where aggressive marketers take hold of a plant product, rename it with a neologism, and the extract, oil, or berry becomes well known under that name (possibly temporarily). This happens with fad diets all the time. And at Mimosa pudica, someone growing the plants for their business kept trying to introduce their trademarked name for the plant which isn't notable yet (no secondary sources mention it). So... unless you bring up another point that I feel I need to respond to here, I think this will be my last post on this topic. I feel that I've been more than patient trying to explain this concept to you but your rebuttals have not changed, fundamentally. The general audience is served best by following WP:COMMONNAME and WP:FLORA, which was crafted to adhere to COMMONNAME but with guidance for plant articles. Both of those support the current title - Medusagyne. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Medusagyne" refers to the jellyfish tree and any other extinct or undiscovered close relatives of the jellyfish tree that might exist or must have existed, whereas this article is just about this one species. So it isn't as good in terms of WP:PRECISION.

Also, I have provided ample proof that there are enough references with the same audience as this article that use the term in a primary way for us to follow suit without waiting for the total population of references to tip to 51%. If any rule prevents you from rationally improving the article, ignore it. You are standing on a technicality against article improvement. Chrisrus (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with User:Rkitko. WP:COMMONNAME is about "most commonly used names", not common/vernacular names as opposed to scientific names. The most commonly used name is Medusagyne, as Rkitko demonstrated above. WP:COMMONNAME clearly favors Medusgyne over "Jellyfish tree". Plantdrew (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medusagyne. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101213041459/http://delta-intkey.com:80/angio/ to http://delta-intkey.com/angio/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)