Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

When did it become possible to conserve a species name?

Ever notice how often a genus name is conserved but the species names are not? Until this morning, I had put this down to botanists being a bunch of lazy sloths. (In my defense, I formed this opinion based on something I read on this website: "Most of Robert Brown's generic names have thus been conserved.... However, the effort of having to endure the name conservation procedure for hundreds of species names was too much and we now use Salisbury's species names.") But I have just discovered that initially conservation was only allowed for taxon at ranks between genus and family, and was only extended to species some time in the last 40 years. I wonder if anyone knows precisely when? Hesperian 01:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was the Saint Louis Code, but I googled it, and found this. It turns out that conservation of specific epithets for major economic plants began with the 1981 Sydney Code, conservation of epithets for species that are types of conserved genera dates to the 1987 Berlin Code, and evidently all restrictions were removed (species were made equivalent with genera and families) with the Tokyo Code of 1993. Man, I feel old!--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks muchly, Curtis. Your googling skills are obviously better than mine. Hesperian 04:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Images in taxoboxes of taxa higher than species

As far as I can see, currently they are chosen randomly. Shouldn't we use a picture representing the species to which the type specimen belongs instead? Sorry if I wasn't clear. Colchicum (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that picking the type could be one factor among many. Others could include the quality of the various photos, whether the photo illustrates typical features of the family/genus/etc (e.g. cross-shaped stigma at Oenothera), and whether a photo depicts a well-known species. Last time this came up there wasn't much discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive10#Plant families, and I'm not aware of any official guideline (for example, Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Images doesn't mention it). I also tend to avoid using the same photo in more than one article (for example, although both Acer (genus) and Acer pseudoplatanus have a photo of A. pseudoplatanus, it isn't the same photo both places), although that's not a hard and fast rule either (mainly because we sometimes don't have enough photos to do it). Kingdon (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are many factors, but one advantage of using the type species is that it will always be appropriate. I'm not sure which species is the type of Scrophularia, for example, but the use of a Scrophularia species in the taxobox of the Scrophulariaceae is much more long-lasting that the Veronica here (which is now placed in the Plantaginaceae).--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be sufficient to say "if quality is comparable, prefer an image of the type taxon". Now all we need to do is to document the types for each of our taxa... :-) Stan (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But Curtis, if the type genus is broken up, what then? I'm not talking about the simple case of splintering off new genera; I'm talking about the more complex cases that can and do occur as a result of synonymy and new research. Consider: the Linnaen type specimen for the genus Marchantia (on which all higher Marchantiophyta taxa are based) was synonymized into another taxon, leaving all ranks up to that of division with a major typification issue. And don't think that this is all that unusual. The type for Anthoceros (on which all higher Anthocerotophyta taxa are based, including the divisional name) was discovered to be published invalidly, leaving that genus with no type specimen. Two authors subsequently published papers naming new types, but their works broke the genus up into two groups where the name Anthoceros was applied to the opposite group in each publication and the second group given differing names. Proskauer's was first (and so has priority), but Schljakov's was more widely publicized by way of Schuster, and so for a period of several decades resulted in many bryophyte floras where all the hornworts had incorrect nomenclatorial combinations with incorrect generic placement. Not only that, but the correct type species for Anthoceros was used during this period as the type for a different genus. Picking the type does not avoid the problems inherent in using images of other species. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are always issues with typification in some groups (and in other groups few issues at all). It's still better, all other things being equal, to pick a Scrophularia to illustrate its family rather than a Veronica or Mimulus.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the same of Oxalis for its (mostly tropical) family? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Or Fagus for Fagaceae, or Malva for Malvaceae s.l. Yes. See below.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note first that not every higher taxon has a type species. After all, does anyone here know the "type species" for seed plants? Even in cases that do have type species, the type species is not always representative of the group's appearance and/or morphology. The type species for the Marchantiophyta is (of course) a species of Marchantia, but the thalloid morphology of Marchantia is an oddity and is by far a minority morphology among the liverworts, which are mostly leafy species. Also, the type for Magnoliidae (sensu Judd, Soltis & Soltis) is a Magnolia, which does not exhibit the characteristic trimerous floral morphology found in the majority of members. Types can also represent less diverse subgroups. The Salviniales is named for a species of Salvinia, a genus containing only 10 species, but the order also includes Marsilea, a genus of about 65 species. The type species of many higher taxa are the result more of publication priority than of biology. So, why should we ever choose the type species photo over a more representative one? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"10.7. The principle of typification does not apply to names of taxa above the rank of family, except for names that are automatically typified by being based on generic names (see Art. 16). The type of such a name is the same as that of the generic name on which it is based." (Vienna Code) So higher taxa are typified only trivially. I don't see any value to preferentially using illustrations of type genera for taxa above the family level. On the other hand, it's never a good idea to use species of uncertain affinities to illustrate their groups, no matter how pretty the photos are. Would Takakia have been a good example for Mosses? or Sphagnum? Are Equisetum or Psilotum good illustrations for Fern?--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this connects to what I said above, so I assume you're agreeing with me that selecting minority group plants with "oddball" morphologies (even if it's the type) is a bad idea. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm disagreeing, so let me be more clear. They're not called "name-bearing types" for nothing.

Let me be clear that I am talking about taxobox photos, of which there is ordinarily one per article. Given that other selection criteria are met (it is of adequate resolution, it is recognizable, shows diagnostic features, is attractive, etc.), there is then the choice of which species to use to illustrate a taxon that contains some amount of diversity. Let's take Family as the level, since we've used a lot of examples there. One could pick a photo of a species in a genus that has a large number of species, or that is widely distributed. One could pick a species of economic importance. One could pick a species that conforms to some perceived Bauplan of the family, rather than a morphological "oddball". Or one could pick the type species, or another species from the type genus.

All I'm saying is that the type represents the name, which is what the taxobox is about. Yes, there are issues with typification, but, all in all, if I wanted to pick a plant that would resolutely remain in the Oxalidaceae, I'd pick an Oxalis.

I'm interested by your statement 'plants with "oddball" morphologies (even if it's the type)'. How do we measure "oddball" in a typified group, except by reference to the type? I can think of only two ways that are scientific (although I admit that it's early morning here and I may have overlooked something): one could calculate the phenetic centroid of the group and measure deviations from that, or one could work out the minimum set of synapopmorphies for the group, and measure distance from the hypothetical basal member along the tree (in many families, these would give very different results). But the advantage of using the type as a reference is that it is tied to the name. That's all I'm saying: the type is, ordinarily, tied to the name.

I think in practice other criteria will govern selection of taxobox photos, and I suspect the Scrophulariaceae photo was changed from Veronica to Scrophularia about the time that the APG classification was incorporated into the article, and it seemed like the safest choice. But, all other things being equal, I honestly can't think of a reason not to use the type species or type genus (or even type specimen) in the taxobox.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The taxobox is not merely about the name; it is about the relationships. If the taxobox were merely about the name, then it would not include information about more inclusive groups containing the taxon in question, nor subgroups of the taxon. The taxobox does include the name and ideally a citation for the name, but that is all the information about the name comtained in any taxobox above the rank of species.

The article is the name. "7.2. A nomenclatural type (typus) is that element to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached, whether as the correct name or as a synonym. The nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical or representative element of a taxon." The (IMO correct) decision in Wikipedia to follow the codes of nomenclature does have consequences. As important as the relationships are, if the name is ambivalent they mean nothing.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though the names of the articles on plant groups are the taxonomic names, the article itself is not about the name; it is about all aspects of the group covered, especially its biology. The image in the taxobox is the first image (and often the only image) used for a page about an entire group. The article should be illustrated with a good illustration for the taxonomic group, so the image must do more than illustrate the name. To pick an image solely to illustrate the name based on the type alone can do a great disservice to the reader.

I have never suggested that.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider the Asparagales, which currently has an image of the type. The species Asparagus officinalis is an oddball member of the order, when one considers that most species are in the families (some APG II optional) Agavaceae, Hemerocallidaceae, Amaryllidaceae, Alliaceae, Iridaceae, and Orchidaceae. Does a picture of flowering asparagus really represent this group? No. The typical bodyplan of the order is quite different, which is why many taxonomists put the genus Asparagus into its own family in the first place.

Sorry, no, I already said that ranks above family are only trivially typified, and I'm not arguing for using their types.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Picking an iage to illsutrate the name, based primarily on wanting to "play it safe" with the nomenclature it a silly criterion. Conservation of a name, additional research, or the correction of an error can (and does) change the name of a group whose circumscription otherwise does not change. Example: The FNA volume on Asteraceae followed the latest published nomenclatorial findings and used the tribe name Cichorieae. But, Italian researchers who looked into the matter of nomenclature discovered this was an error, and Lactuceae is actually the correct name, because Cichorieae (while published first) turned out to be invalidly published (IIRC, it may have been something other than a validity issue). So, the name of the group changes, and we choose a different image, even though it's the exact same group?

I'm still not sure why you are so opposed to types, rather than being neutral about them. In the case you mention, many family names of flowering plants are conserved. The type of the Fabaceae is Vicia faba, but the family is not the "Viciaceae".--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words, the argument that a type image will be more stable is spurious. The type and even the name of the group can change, even if the group's circumscription does not change.

I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. Types are governed by the ICBN. Circumscription is a matter of opinion and consensus among plant systematists. Circumscription is much more often at issue than typification.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

An additional problem I have not yet articulated is that of POV. The Linnean families were named based on taxa well-known to Europeans, so the types are typically European species. This introduces bias in illustration if we stick with using types to illustrate higher taxa.

I'm starting to detect that you are infusing the use of nomenclatural types with far more power than the ICBN does. Types establish the connection between a name and an organism. Wikipedia titles articles with names. There's nothing more to it than that. And I find it strange to refer to following the ICBN as "POV".--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 'plants with "oddball" morphologies (even if it's the type)'. The classic example is Marchantia, whose morphology is radically and fundamentally different from the majority of liverworts in its order, class, and division. The features taught of this genus taught to students in introdroductory botany classes are the obvious ones, but they are features absent in most other members of the order, class, etc. Gemmae cups, for example, are limited to the family Marchantiaceae and one other genus. Dimorphic rhizoids occur in most members of the class, but not all, and do not occur in the other (much larger) group of liverworts. Most members of the order, class, etc. do not elevate their archegonia or antheridia on specialized stalks. In short, the genus is a morphological oddball. It would be like having Equisetum as the type genus for the ferns, or having Spanish moss be the type for the bromeliads. If Tillandsia usneoides were the type for the bromeliad family, would you want to use it to illustrate the family page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So you wouldn't object to using an image of Marchantia for the Marchantiaceae? And, without conservation of the name, Tillandsia usneoides would be the type of the "Tillandsiaceae".

I'm still having trouble understanding your hostility toward types. I've not heard you argue that taxa have any sort of mystical "essence" that determines what a representative member might be. I've mentioned some objective criteria for determining "representative" (species-rich genera, geographically widespread genera, morphological Bauplan determined phenetically or cladistically), but you haven't supported any of those or any others. So your criteria for "representative" are still unclear.

I have never argued that types are "representative". I have never argued that types are unchanging (although I continue to argue that the ICBN does have rules to deal with that). I have never argued that family articles shouldn't express the variability within the family (I hope I agree with you on that). I have never argued that an image of the type should be preferred even if images of other species are clearer, show family synapomorphies better, are higher resolution, or even "prettier". All I am saying is that using an image of the type has its own set of advantages.

If you'd like to propose a guideline that excludes the use of images of types in the taxoboxen, then I suppose there would be a reason to continue this discussion. If not, and since there is no other recommendation on the table, I'm done.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say briefly that I value a high quality image of a representative species in which representative characteristics are clearly visible, regardless of the type status. DJLayton4 (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is way too much verbiage over something that is very often going to be case-specific anyway. Yes, there are cases where the type species is not that representative in form, or European-biased, or whatever, but image selection also has an unavoidably subjective element of aesthetics, so it's not something that can ever be reduced to formal rules. In the few cases where we're lucky enough to have multiple high-quality images for a taxon, and one of those images is of the type species, then we should favor it, unless there is a special reason not to do so, in which case we tell people to choose a better image and explain the special reason on the talk page. Done. Stan (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed about "too much verbiage" and "case-specific". I guess I'll leave it at that, since anything more I would say would worsen the "too much verbiage" problem. Kingdon (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unidentified flowers

Please identify the flowers at Wikipedia:Unidentified flowers and delete the page once completed. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Rosidae/rosids redux

Pardon the alliteration. I abstained from the previous discussion on his matter, because I was ignorant. I'm not anymore, and I believe the wrong decision has been made.

The PhyloCode is a draft; it has not yet been brought into effect; it states, explicitly, that clade names published before it is brought into effect will not be accepted.

Cantino's paper is a great read, but the names published therein are not validly published under any current code. Clearly the authors understand this; they are not claiming to have actually erected these names; they are merely putting forward a nomenclatural framework for discussion.

I think we have erred in choosing article titles Angiospermae over angiosperms, Rosidae over rosidsMagnoliidae over magnoliids, etc; and I think we have erred where we have used "Angiospermae" instead of "angiosperms" in taxoboxes and article prose. These are not valid clade names, and there is no guarantee that they ever will be.

Hesperian 04:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If we relied only on validly published names, then some pages would have no name at all, or else a name that is logically impossible to apply. What would we do for seed plants? What would we do for the combined fern-Psilotum-Equisetopsida group? Some clades have been recognized solidly in multiple studies with extensive evidence, but have no name published under the ICBN. The only options are to (1) use a PhyloCode name, (2) use an incorrect name, (3) invent a name, or (4) designate the page and group with a number and tell people "this group has no name". Of these options, I prefer the citable published PhyloCode name, even if the PhyloCode is not yet formally in effect. Note that this only applies to a dozen or so plant groups at very high "rank".

The names "rosid" and "angiosperm" are just as invalid and unpublished, but are virtually guaranteed never to be adopted under any code. By contrast, the Cantino paper suggestions have a high likelihood of being adopted, since Cantino is one of the authors developing the PhyloCode. The citation information will change with the publication of the phylonyms volume, but the names should not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that "angiosperm" is explicitly an informal name (and therefore cannot be incorrect), whereas "Angiospermae" is an informal name masquerading as a formal name. And we're doing everything we can to promote the untruth that this is a valid formal name. We even give an author citation for it, even though the cited source cannot and does not publish any formal names! To those who don't understand this stuff, our approach is deceptive; to those who do, it appears we don't.

I can't see any evidence that anyone out there has prematurely adopted these names in the manner that we have in here. APweb, for example, still uses "angiosperms" and "Magnoliophyta". Hesperian 02:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think any problems with the actual Rosidae article don't extent beyond the phrasing "under Phylocode", and we didn't grasp the nettle of merging rosids, or revising taxoboxes. 222 pages link to Rosidae, but a fair proportion of those would be sensu Cronquist.

I suppose we could always set a WikiBooks project "A New Classification of Embryophytes" and cite that :-) Lavateraguy (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; scratch that example. My issue is with us naming the flowering plants article "Angiospermae", and presenting that as a valid clade name, with author citation, in the taxobox. Ditto Magnoliidae. These are not validly published names, and it is improper for us to be presenting them as if they are. Hesperian 02:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with Hesperian, that it is better to use informal names that are obviously informal. Nevertheless, "Angiospermae" is a published ICBN name (it is even mentioned in the Code, Art. 16), with the same circumscription as the clade. "Magnoliidae" on the other hand may very well be a published ICBN name, but likely with a very different circumscription than the clade name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't legitimately use a ranked taxon name as a clade name. Either we treat it as a ranked taxon, call it "Angiospermae Lindl.", give it divisio rank, and have people ask us why on earth we're using a name long since overturned in favour of "Magnoliophyta Cronquist, Takht. & W.Zimm."; or, we treat it as a clade, give it an informal name, and leave it unranked. Either way, "Angiospermae Lindley [P.D. Cantino & M.J. Donoghue]" is unacceptable. That name was published merely as nomenclatural food for thought, so to treat it as a formal name is to misrepresent the source. Hesperian 03:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm agreeing; yet another reason to use the informal name. Will you be changing Flowering plant, or shall I? --Curtis Clark (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, I'm confused by your reasoning. You don't want to use the Cantino names because they're not formal names, so instead we're going to use other informal names? I don't follow that reasoning. Why reject one set of informal names (with clear and explicit descriptions) in favor of vaguely defined names (whose definitions vary from publication to publication)? --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel we're going over the same ground here. (1) Better an explicitly informal name than an informal name that masquerades as a formal name; (2) I can show you a paper that recommends we refer to that clade by the name "angiosperms", and I can show you that that recommendation has been widely adopted. I don't believe you can show me a paper that recommends we refer to that clade by the name "Angiospermae" (Cantino would deny that his paper does that), and I suspect you couldn't show me a single paper that has taken up that name. Hesperian 11:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if you had read the paper instead of guessing at Cantino's motives. Each name defined in the paper is followed by a full PhyloCode style citation. And, from the last paragraph of the paper's Introduction: "The objectives of this paper are to: (1) provide preliminary phylogenetic definitions for the names of some frequently discussed vascular-plant clades, thereby facilitating communication about phylogeny." Clearly, the names and definitions are intended to be used, not merely for show. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In the case of flowering plant there's at least one perfectly good ICBN name for the clade (Magnoliophyta), so I don't see why we don't use that. Magnoliidae does seem to be a problem - the nearest ICBN name would seem to be Magnolianae, but it's not a particularly good match.

The Cantino et al names are published, and provide formal definitions of the clades. They're not (yet) validly published under any code. Is the last point essential - they're no different in that respect from the APG supraordinal clade designations. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "ICBN name for the clade"; ICBN names are for ranked taxa, not clades. Furthermore, as Petey said on his talk page, "there is no published name under the ICBN that circumscribes these clades in anything resembling the modern phylogenetic sense". I firmly agree with Petey on this point. Magnoliophyta is old hat, because angiosperm systematists no longer have any interest in ranking their clades. Hesperian 11:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no published name under the ICBN that circumscribes anything; the code provides handles for circumscription (types applied to names), but does not circumscribe.

As an angiosperm systematist (although with an old hat), I take issue with the last statement. Large numbers of angiosperm systematists (including the APG folks) still have interest in ranking families, genera, and species, while at the same time circumscribing them as clades.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "There is no published name under the ICBN that circumscribes anything"... you've misinterpreted what was said. No one said the name circumscribes. Your insistence on arguing semantics rather than concepts is tiring; please stick with discussing the ideas and avoid these tangential points.

Did Hesperian misquote you? I'm sorry you see it as semantics; perhaps your missing the concept was also at issue with your response to what I thought was a simple post on types.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What is being said it that when we reference a particular author's publication by putting that information after the name, we are not merely referencing the name, but are referencing that author's concept of the circumscription meant by that name. There's no way around that, regarless of what the ICBN actually does. The majority of our users will know be that familiar with the Code to know. For example, anyone using the name Liliaceae must follow immediately with "sensu X" in order to be understood. There are multiple concepts of what that name applies to, so the name alone is now almost meaningless. Again, if you look at Lindley's circumscription of the "Angiospermae", it's simply inadequate, as it was published as a tribe. So referencing just "Angiospermae Lindley" when we are actually talking about all flowering plants is a disservice to our users. The same argument applies to any article/name combination here where the circumscription used in the article differs radically from the circumscription in the referenced article.

I find your conclusions bizarre, especially given your take on types. When we look at Malvaceae Juss., do we assume that we are using Jussieu's circumscription? Do you think Robert Brown's circumscription of the Oxalidaceae included Averrhoa? (Well, maybe it did, but I would guess not.) Do you think Linnaeus had Asclepias in mind with his circumscription of the Apocynaceae? If we "are referencing that author's concept of the circumscription meant by that name," we're doing it wrong. It is a disservice to our users to imply that ICBN names come with a circumscription.

Furthermore, a Phylocode name comes with a phylogenetic definition, but even that is not a full circumscription, since phylogenies are hypotheses: for example, one investigator may believe that a character of species A is an apomorphy shared with clade B, but another may assert that it is homoplastic. So even with phylocode taxa, there will be sensus. I hope I'm agreeing with you that it's important to have the sensu in the article.

On reflection, I realize that every circumscription is a hypothesis.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have to characterize my disagreement with you as "semantics", but I suppose it's convenient to characterize it as "tangential". I assume you're using the third definition in Wiktionary, but I'm using the second, and I don't think there is any basis for discussing concepts unless we can agree on the meanings of the words.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So, would you be happy if we structured the taxobox name for the flowering plants as "Angiospermae Lindley sensu P.D. Cantino & M.J. Donoghue? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Inasmuch as the Cantino and Donoghue paper is a sensu rather than a published Phylocode name, that would work. So would "Magnoliophyta Cronquist, Takht. & W.Zimm. sensu P.D. Cantino & M.J. Donoghue", or even "angiosperms sensu P.D. Cantino & M.J. Donoghue", since the sensu is of the clade, not the name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well then it sounds like the two of us, at least, have reached a workable solution to use "ICBN name sensu proto-PhyloCode name". Is this solution acceptable to others here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's take it a step further. Should there not be a sensu in every article above the level of species (which has a different set of issues)? Should the Apocynaceae article not say sensu APGII? That would make it clear that it's not your grandfather's (or even my grandfather's) Apocynaceae. Since a proto-Phylocode name is just another circumscription, it is as useful as any other. Hesperian, does this make sense to you?--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I understand that an ICBN name may be circumscribed in any way that contains its type specimen. I suspect that all three of us shared a consistent and correct understanding of the situation viz. names and circumscriptions, and that our disagreements on this point can be put down to laxity of language. I don't think there should be a sensu in every article above the level of species, as many taxa only have one circumscription, either literally or for all practical modern purposes. I do agree that a great many taxoboxes would be improved by explicit mention of which circumscriptions they are following. However, this is a cul-de-sac that has no bearing on the question whether we should adopt proto-PhyloCode names.

I think that's a good answer to my question above. Because I don't think we should adopt proto-Phylocode names, but I assume that EncycloPetey has solid reasons to want to do so (more solid than "because they are cool"), I'm trying to address what I perceive to be one of those issues, in hopes that we can address the real problem and move away from the ill-advised attempt to use proto-Phylocode. So yes, it's a cul-de-sac, but to me the next logical step, since in my mind the original question (use proto-Phylocode?) is answered with a resounding no.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree with "Angiospermae Lindley sensu P.D. Cantino & M.J. Donoghue", as this would be a misrepresentation of the source, which has most certainly not offered up a novel circumscription of "Angiospermae Lindl. What it has done is (i) suggest that "Angiospermae" would be a good PhyloCode name for the angiosperms, and (ii) demonstrate how this name might in future be adopted by converting Lindley's ICBN ranked name into a PhyloCode clade name. There is no suggestion that Lindley's unconverted ranked name should be circumscribed as containing all the angiosperms; this would indeed be ridiculous given the rank at which Angiospermae Lindl. was published.

Hesperian 02:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

First, in my mind, the flowering plants are like the cacti and grasses: Who disagrees any more about the circumscription?

Second, if the article were to reference all the synapomorphies of flowering plants, it would contain a circumscription whether or not it were explicit.

Third, I think the only reason not to call the article Magnoliophyta or even Anthophyta would be that the phylum rank would be inconsistent with other seed plant articles. No one doubts any more that both of those names refer to flowering plants.

I still support Hesperian's call for using an informal name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was concerned primarily with the high-level clades, but I could see doing something like that for families Apocynaceae and Liliaceae, where the circumscription is wildly variable among various authors. I wouldn't think it needed for groups like Cactaceae or Poaceae, though, since those families have consistent membership. I'm also not sure it would be useful much below the level of family, at least to the typical user of Wikipedia. I certainly wouldn't bother adding sensu information to articles about genera or species. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't kept up with the most recent literature, but I seem to remember that Helianthus was in good need of a circumscription, since the removal of a number of well-marked genera had left it massively paraphyletic, giving either Helianthus sensu lato, with the segregate genera submerged, or Helianthus sensu stricto with only the narrow group containing the type, and all the segregate clades removed. But I agree that it's not necessary for many groups.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The phylocode people have a recommendation for this problem, although I do not support putting proto-phylocode names in taxoboxes (see my comment below). The following is from the phylocode website:

Recommendation 6.1B. In order to indicate which names are established under this code and therefore have explicit phylogenetic definitions (and whose endings are not reflective of rank), it may be desirable to distinguish these names from supraspecific names governed by the rank-based codes, particularly when both are used in the same publication.

Example 1. The letter "P" (bracketed or in superscript) might be used to designate names governed by this code, and the letter "R" to designate names governed by the rank-based codes. Using this convention, the name "Ajugoideae[R]" would apply to a plant subfamily which may or may not be a clade, whereas "Teucrioideae[P]" would apply to a clade which may or may not be a subfamily.

Example 2. If the name Teucrioideae applied to both a clade (this code) and a subfamily (ICBN), they could be distinguished as Clade Teucrioideae versus Subfamily Teucrioideae. DJLayton4 (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Hesperian. Taxoboxes are used to show Linnean taxa except when unranked taxa are invovled, and using Cantino's phylocode names that have different meanings in Linnean taxonomy have high potential to confuse. Sticking with the APG names is more sensible until (if) the phylocode comes into use. Adding sensu makes it unclear whether or not we are using accepted names in other places, so unless someone wants to change many articles, I think it's best to wait. Futhermore, I'm a bit curious as to why most in this discussion find the Cantino names more appealing considering the amount of resistance/lack of consensus towards the phylocode in comparison with the overall acceptance of the APGII phylogeny. Wikipedia should be a reflection of concensus in the botanical world, not of the preferences of Wikipedia editors; the Cantino paper is so recent that I think it's rather presumptuous of Wikipedia editors to assume that his new names will amount to anything. Indeed, that last sentence of Cantio et al.'s abstract is "The phylogenetic definitions proposed here should help focus future discussions of the PhyloCode on real definitions rather than simplified hypothetical ones". He explicitly acknowledges "future discussions of the Phylocode" and that the names are simply "proposed", i.e. not yet accepted. I honestly think it's irresponsible of us to use these names until other botanist start doing so on a regular basis. DJLayton4 (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The pre-existing consensus does seem to be to use APG names, both ranked and unranked.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

APG is fine for what it does, but it does not address all the issues I have raised. For one thing, APG only applies to angiosperms. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we been talking about angiosperms? or did I miss something?--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't understood, but could you sum up what it is that you think justifies our use of a system that botantists don't use yet and perhaps never will use? As far as I'm concerned, using a system in taxoboxes that is not accepted by the majority of botanists is against the principles of WP:UNDUE. It's probable that the PhyloCode will come into use eventually, and it's advantages are obvious, but until it does come into widespread use I don't believe that we are in any position to favour it over accepted taxonomic practise. DJLayton4 (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not just a majority of old fogey botanists; there are also some flaming cladists who oppose (or opposed) phylocode: Platnick, Nelson, and Nixon.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Dandelion

I hate to intrude on this prickly discussion about upper level clads, but could I get some one to move the Dandelion page to Taraxacum. Thank you. Hardyplants (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Melburnian (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary history of life

I've taken on the insanely ambitious task of rewriting Evolutionary history of life. I've had comments that the new version covers animals more thoroughly than plants, and I agree. Unfortunately I'm no botanist, let alone paleobotanist. I'd appreciate input at Talk:Evolutionary history of life on this or other topics. -- Philcha (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Assistance in clean up

Hey gang. I know a few of you have noticed the activity of Cottonapple4 (talk · contribs). This user created a whole bunch of articles with a standard format that need taxoboxes and proper formatting, etc. They're mostly the Photinia, Malus and Crataegus stubs if you go through the user's contribs. Any help in cleaning those up to our stub standards would be appreciated! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 14:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This user also moved some articles from scientific name to common name. I think I fixed most of them, but another set of eyes would be useful.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Plant

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Scientific names in genus categories

There seems to be a bit of confusion when it comes to sorting scientific names in genus categories. Here are some examples:

• Category:Acacia - mostly sorted by epithet (under upper case letter)
• Category:Agave - unsorted
• Category:Apples - unsorted
• Category:Banksia taxa by scientific name - sorted by epithet (under upper case letter)
• Category:Eucalyptus - sorted by epithet (under upper case letter)
• Category:Quercus -unsorted
• Category:Senecio - sorted by epithet name (under lower case letter)
• Category:Stylidium - both unsorted and by epithet name (under lower case letter)
• Category:Viola - sorted by epithet name (under lower case letter)

It would be nice to have consistency within and between categories. Any thoughts? Melburnian (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a Bot that can do the sorting? Once a uniform way to do the sorting is worked out.Hardyplants (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they really have to be sorted by specific epithet, else you end up with every article listed under the first letter of the genus, which is no help at all. The remaining issue is whether to sort by lower case letter or upper case letter. I tried the former for Category:Banksia taxa by scientific name, and I thought it looked crap, so I settled on the latter. Hesperian 05:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I liked lowercase myself because it allows a neat separation of species from non-species article, but maybe that's just me. throw in Category:Acer under lowercase. Circeus (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Circeus (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer sort by lowercase species epithet. I'm mid-sort on Category:Stylidium after having finished the sort at Category:Utricularia. --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Circeus makes a good point. I'm happy to change to lower case if that's what most others are doing. You haven't told us what you prefer, Melburnian.? Hesperian 23:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, the separation of species from non-species articles mentioned by Circeus leads me to favour lower case. Additionally, this reflects the lower case of epithets. Melburnian (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

these are easy enough to fix, I am doing Category:Abies as a sample. Rich Farmbrough, 15:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC). (Copied to current page) Rich Farmbrough, 15:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

Requested move

Will an editor please move Colocynth to its binomial name Citrullus colocynthis which is now a redirect? Thank you.

Monotypic genera naming convention

Hi, all. I've seen a bit of discussion on the flora naming convention point on monotypic genera as not being supporting by enough consensus or supporting logic. I've opened a discussion on this point at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)#Monotypic genera. I'd appreciate your input. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Help identifying flower species

Hi. I posted some pictures to the Science Reference Desk the other day, and someone helped me figure out what kind of plant I had photographed, and I've now added those pictures to the appropriate pages at the commons. I thought I'd try here this time, it being a more specialized place.

• File:PurpleFlower 1.JPG
• File:PurpleFlower 2.JPG
• File:PurpleFlower 3.JPG

The flowers look a lot like the blooms of Ruellia angustifolia, but the foliage is entirely different. They're growing in a garden in North Texas. Thanks in advance if anyone can help out. If it would help to get a close-up shot of just one bloom, I could do that, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How about Ruellia elegans. ? Hardyplants (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The pictures I'm finding of R. elegans on Google show the flowers to be red. Do they also come in light purple? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Flower color is not a good way to ID many plants, especially those that are in the purple-red continuum. I am only making a guess, since there are more than 300 species of Ruellia. Hardyplants (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Another plant to look at would be Ruellia humilis var. longiflora it is native to that area I believe. Hardyplants (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a dwarf cultivar of Ruellia brittoniana, possibly Ruellia brittoniana 'Katie' which originated in a Texas nursery. [1] Melburnian (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks right to me...here is another site with more pictures, note the variation in flower color.[2]Hardyplants (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The dwarf cultivar makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the help, guys. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to grow this plant, there is a new series of cultivars that should be available this summer. Ruellia brittoniana 'Southern Star' which comes in blue, pink and white, plus a mix - plants are said to grow 10 inches tall.Hardyplants (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Help with flower identification

unidentified

G'day. Could anyone help me out with what the this flower is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodle snacks (talk • contribs) 00:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Were was the picture taken? Is the plant a small tree, shrub etc? Hardyplants (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Tasmania, Australia, But I don't think it's a native. Reasonable sized tree, taller than I am (about 6ft). I could get a picture of the tree if can't tell from just the flower. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We have a number of people here that are familiar with the plants growing in your part of the world, so lets wait and see what they might say. Hardyplants (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. If it was from North America, my best guess would have been a species of Amelanchier. Hardyplants (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not native to Australia. It's within Rosaceae but beyond that I'm really not sure. For plant IDs, a series of photos showing flowers, leaves, bark (for trees) and whole of plant helps to narrow down the possibilities. Melburnian (talk) 06:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for Prunus, on the basis of the single style. (Amelanchier has 5 styles; Crataegus monogyna has pink anthers.) I'd guess at subgenus Cerasus, but I find the easiest way of identifying species of Prunus is to read the label. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Mojave yucca

An IP editor keeps adding a section claiming that this species was planted around fortifications in Florida, the Caribbean, and Central and South America, and I keep reverting because it is unreferenced, and I'm virtually certain that it involved native species rather than Y. schidigera. I've started adding WP:NOR warnings to his talk page, but he doesn't seem to understand the concept, and I'm sure he sees it as edit warring. I don't plan to violate 3RR, but this could go on for a while. I'd appreciate either some help or someone setting me straight by providing a reference.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Try looking for Yucca aloifolia in this context. There's some JSTOR papers that look as if they refer to that species in the requested context. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I got hold of the JSTOR article; it says that Y. aloifolia was used for slope stabilization at Fort McRee in 1851.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the anonymous editor doesn't seem to be discussing the matter, or providing references, I'm not sure what there is to do besides keep reverting it. Patiently explaining what is wrong with that text has been tried. This need not fall entirely to Curtis Clark; I've put the page on my watchlist and I see Stan was also on that talk page at least at one point. As for Yucca aloifolia it has been cultivated[3] although I didn't research the matter much. Kingdon (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to block after one more warning. What reputation we have partly depends on helping the boneheaded to go find something to do with their time... Stan (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement

Hello all...

An image used in the Tulip article, specifically Image:2005-04-08.FH-616.Tulip.jpg in the gallery, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

• And also Image:Alluaudia procera.JPG on Alluaudia

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would just delete the Tulip image, Tulip pictures are a 'dime a dozen' so to speak, and easy to get. The picture of the stick with the nasty look, prickles/thorns and all that - is not so easy to replace. Hardyplants (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, commons:Category:Alluaudia has a dozen photos, including three of A. procera - two closeups by me, and one in habitat in Madagascar, so there is plenty of choose from actually. Stan (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced the picture with the one showing the plant its natural mature habit. Hardyplants (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Pratia or Platytheca?

Pratia is a genus article that has another name, Platytheca (which appears to be a different genus from another order), in the taxobox. I want to add a category for this genus to Commons (having obtained a third photo from Flickr, Image:Pratia.jpg). Which name should I use for the category, and why are they different here? Was it just an error by the uploader? Richard001 (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa; copy and paste error when I created one after the other. Pratia it is, thanks for picking it up, now fixed --Melburnian (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That seemed more and more obvious after I asked. Thanks for the confirmation; I have now created a category for it on Commons. Richard001 (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)