Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Common names

After our spat regarding the Vinca minor article I've had some discussion with MPF and several other editors regarding common names. I continue to believe that as an international encyclopedia, Wikipedia's plant articles should include all common names of at least somewhat common usage in the various English-speaking regions of the world, regardless of where they are used; it is not Wikipedia's place to promote one common name above another as the "correct" one. Like it or not, "myrtle" is fairly commonly used as a name for Vinca minor in the USA. I think a reasonable compromise is to discuss which names are in use in which regions of the world; in most cases, but especially those where there are numerous common names for a single species (or genus), common names should probably have their own paragraph and discussion within the article. I have no idea why the name "myrtle" is used for Vinca minor (or for Lagerstroemia or for Myrica) but it would be interesting to know why; the history of common names is as fascinating as the history of botanical names and a discussion of why certain names are used in certain regions would be informative in its own right (although in some cases the reasons are quite straightforward; for example, Sinningia speciosa is commonly known as "gloxinia"--the valid name of another genus entirely--simply because the species was originally, and quite validly at the time, named and introduced as Gloxinia speciosa, and became immensely popular under that name). I hope Wikipedia can include this kind of information but that's probably far in the future. In the meantime, Wikipedia should simply record the facts of usage in the hope that somebody will expand the article later. MrDarwin 13:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Any common name used for a number of different taxa should have its own article, somewhat like a disambiguation page, but with enough content that the reader can either a) get directed to the right taxon article, or b) realize that he/she needs to get more information. Sardine is an example I created long ago for fish; the article is a simpler and more useful solution than any redirect could be. Stan 18:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree... common name disambig pages would be much better with thumbnails, assuming we have pix of all the plants being referred to. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 23:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If there are several common names for a species, I see no objection in listing those we know about. TeunSpaans 19:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments moved from project page

Here's one example of confusion that already exists, Bay Laurel in California is an accepted common name for Umbellularia californica, but in Wikipedia, Bay Laurel is THE common name for Laurus nobilis, and one cannot find the California Bay Laurel by searching Wikipedia by common name.

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/umbcal/all.html (And, yes, I know it's not listed in the Jepson Manaul online as a common name.)

• "The use of binomial nomenclature names makes Wikipedia inaccessable for the majority since categories will give lists of the scientific names and not the common name." The solution to this is not doing away with binomial nomenclature which opens the world of nature up to everyone, but to include common names, when they are available, after the scientific names in lists. And list plants that have common names by their common names, then direct users to the article under the scientific name.

• A suggestion is made at one point that "If a plant is endemic the common name should be used." All plants are endemic--to somewhere.

• As to plants without common names in English, there are more that meet this description than otherwise, making it readily apparent that there will be no order in botany on Wikipedia by using this method. Some plants will be under common names, but eventually a larger number will be under scientific names, and this will make Wikipedia a confusing mess for those seeking botanical information.

• Also, "Plants with contrasting common names in different regions" should use scientific names to title articles ignores the fact that almost all plants have different common names in different regions because people speak different languages, and common names are just that: the common name for a plant in a specific region. Common names ARE regionalisms. That's why scientists use scientific names.

• In botany, there is only one correct scientific name. When the names are in dispute one should simply check ICBN to find out the current correct one. Alternate or incorrect names should contain a note and direct to the correct name. The solution of using a common name won't work because all names with incorrect synonyms do not have common names, and one must make an additional Wiki-ception for this instance.

All these rules just cry out for making exceptions.

• There is one good comment about a place where common names would be appropriate and useful, "Plants with single-word or short English common names in wide use, especially if they are economically or culturally significant." For economically and culturally significant plants, an article about that, their economic and/or cultural significance under their common name would be acceptable, with links to the botanical article, including the botanical descriptions and classifications under the scientific name.

The reason scientific binomials were so readily accepted after the publication of Linnaeus' tomes, was their immediate usefulness for conveying exactly what organism was being discussed. They were adopted long before they were codified, because they tell people all over the world exactly what organism you are speaking about.

To title articles by their scientific names and use all redirects to that article is simply easier, and it removes all confusion. When someone is armed with the scientific name, they can do additional research at whatever level. Armed with a common name in an incressingly international world, a student may wind up confused or with incorrect information and without the necessary knowledge (the scientific name) to know they are wrong.

There are simply too many ways to go wrong using common names as titles. And all these ways of going wrong are corrected by using the scientific name of the plant, without exceptions.

The botanical articles are a mess. There is someone who is going through hundreds of Wikipedia pages on flora and fauna and adding specific types of notes that are helpful. But the most helpful thing would be to set a standard and get it going right away, to make it easier for those who want to contribute and those who want to use Wikipedia.

I would like to help more, but it takes a lot of time to learn to use Wikipedia, and I can only go one step at a time.

Please consider redirecting common names to scientific names, and titling articles by their scientific names. If you don't do it now, someone will have to do it in the future to clean up the botanical pages. It won't be done the other way around: scientific names won't ever be converted in Botany to common names, it's simply the nature of plants, there are too many without common names, they travel around the world as weeds, and folks need to gain scientific, horticultural and natural history knowledge about them, and the way to do that is by using their singular names. KP Botany 21:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree! Others have said before that as soon as we here in this project decide to name articles by the scientific name, Wikipedians outside of the project would automatically overrun us by sticking to larger common naming conventions for article titles. However, instead of dismissing your comments and leaving it at that, I suggest we formulate a sensibly worded naming convention, specifically on article titles and scientific names and then propose it as a Wikipedia naming convention at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Most everyone else agrees, at least here, on this issue. So, suggestions for a carefully worded naming convention, anyone? --Rkitko 00:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. I want to point out, though, that the statement "In botany, there is only one correct scientific name," is incorrect. The rules of the ICBN allow us to select the correct name when names are nomenclatural synonyms (share the same type), but taxonomic synonyms (that don't share the same type), and even homotypic synonyms placed in different genera, are a matter of scientific opinion (so that, for example, Parkinsonia florida and Cercidium floridum are both correct names, depending on how you circumscribe the genera). This is not an argument against using the scientific name, but we need to be prepared for those who would claim that scientific names are less stable than common names.--Curtis Clark 03:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand this. I had to look up a list of scientific names to verify for plants using a garden subscription site. One of the plants I looked up was Cercidium floridum. I think it is listed in the database as Parkinsonia florida being correct, but the USDA site lists Cercidium floridum as the correct name--or the latter is correct in the database and the former is in the Jepson Manual, and I don't remember how it was decided or what was decided to use. What is differently circumscribed? There are two different type specimens, one for each name? How do they differ? Then I suppose it should be listed under both names, but I'm still not following this, if they're differently circumscribed, then the names are valid for different circumscriptions of the same type specimen? Oh, well, maybe taxonomy is best left to taxonomists.

Scientific names in botany today are much less stable than common names, good point--and this would have to be recognized in the plant article naming guidelines. This doesn't remove the rampant set of problems associated with common names, including your comment that it would require an entire encyclopedia of its own right to hold all of the common names for plants. KP Botany 17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point; thanks for including that. As for article titles, if we seek out the purpose of a well-chosen title, I think we'd be better prepared to defend our choice. Here, I believe stability is a smaller player, while internal and external ease of access of information is key. A user needs to be able to locate an article by searching for the most common term. That, I think, is the biggest argument against the scientific name titles (not considering redirects). But since common names are so disputed and regional, often no common name consensus can be created and we could argue that therefore the latin nomenclature that's even used in other languages is the most common of all.

So should we go the route of If there are more than two common names for any species of plant, use the scientific name for the article title or should we go further to say All plant article titles should be scientific names unless and add some exceptions like well-known agricultural species (though some have articles for the product and then another for the botanical description). Am I missing a third option? --Rkitko 04:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally would go with All plant article titles should be scientific names unless..., both for uniformity and because I have come to prefer scientific names as being more informative and less ambiguous in almost every case. This will also stop endless bickering about what constitutes "two or more common names" and what to do with regional differences, spelling variations, etc. However, I am open to anything as long as the overall trend is to move to strong convention of using scientifc names over common names in most cases. As long as we develop a clear system of redirects for common names with disambiguation pages of names with multiple taxa before submitting the suggestion to the Naming Convention, we should be fine. I welcome this proposal to write up a new naming convention and will support and help develop it as needed. --NoahElhardt 05:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been saying this to anybody who would listen ever since I came to Wikipedia. I'm all for it. It would certainly go a long way towards defusing the arguments and debates over what is the "most common" or "most correct" common name. MrDarwin 12:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggested a litmus test for "common-ness" of a name a while back, but didn't get much reaction either way. The test is - which name seems most appropriate in the body of the article? For instance, does it seem reasonable to replace "oak" with "Quercus" throughout the running text of oak? Or to say E. californica everywhere in California poppy? Empirically from looking at edit histories, it seems that even the experts often use common names in article bodies when it's not absolutely necessary to distinguish species or suchlike. So I suggest that if the writer finds the common name more reasonable in text, that's a strong hint to make the article title match the body. In practice, because of ambiguity and multiple common name concerns, I think the number would be small, probably only a few hundred, but they will tend to be frequently-visited articles that we don't want to have to fight over all the time. Stan 18:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Plant Naming Convention Proposal draft

Problems to solve

1. The current convention outlined by the Tree of Life WikiProject states: "In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise."
2. Some plants have one common name, many have multiple common names, while others have no common name at all. In no case are these common names regulated by a governing body.
3. Currently, arguments exist over which common name to use in a given article title.
4. Using common names is often problematic for reasons of bias and ambiguity - different common names are used for the same plant in different regions, while some common names apply to multiple taxa.
5. On the flipside, using only scientific names may make it difficult for lay readers to locate articles.

Proposal for name page titles

1. Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following, as determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion on the WikiProject Plants talk page:
   1. Agricultural and horticultural cases in which multiple different products stem from the same scientific name (eg. brussel sprouts, cabbage, broccoli). In such a case, a separate page with the botanical description of the entire species is preferred.
   2. Plants which are economically or culturally significant enough to merit their own page, using the common name as a title, describing their use. Example: Coffee. (A) separate page(s) with the botanical description(s) of the taxa involved, using the scientific name, is preffered.
2. Common names are to redirect to scientific names.
3. All known common names for a taxon are to be listed in the plant article.
4. In cases where multiple taxa share the same common name, a disambiguation page is to be used.

Advantages of this proposal

1. Uniformity of article names
2. NPOV - Common names are regional, while scientific names are recognized worldwide. Using scientific names eliminates arguments over which name is "most common", "unique", "most widely used", etc.
3. Both lay and non-lay persons can locate articles easily.

I've drafted a naming convention above. Please edit it or post comments below so we can work this into a usable proposal. --NoahElhardt 16:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do this, Noah! It really helped get the process and discussion going. --Rkitko 05:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Pansy? At the very least, "horticultural" would need to be added to "agricultural". Specifying "all cases" I think is asking for trouble, both in terms of starting fights over articles that have been uncontroversial up to now (rose, oak, maple, pine, etc)), and in discouraging what is already a rather thin population of readers and editors. Stan 18:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

But note that rose, oak, maple, and pine all link to disambiguation pages for these terms, all of which include other plants that sometimes masquerade under those names. MrDarwin 20:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Curtis-- My current understanding is that there can be only one legitimate validly published scientific name for a specific type specimen. Please elaborate on my discussion page, if you care to. Ah, well, this is all beyond comprehension by non-taxonomists.

Saint Louis Code Article 11.1: Each family or taxon of lower rank with a particular circumscription, position, and rank can bear only one correct name, special exceptions being made for 9 families and 1 subfamily for which alternative names are permitted (see Art. 18.5 and 19.7).

"...with a particular circumscription, position, and rank", which covers the Parkinsonia/Cercidium case. All three of these factors are the result of taxonomic judgment, not the application of nomenclatural rules.--Curtis Clark 04:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above. KP Botany 17:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The exceptions, Rkitko, should be, imo, that plants with economic and cultural significance (this includes horticulture) SHOULD have a separate page with the common name as the title, and the article itself is ABOUT the economic or cultural uses of the plant. (This was not my idea originally, but another user's.)

My touchstone in this regard is Apple. Almost everyone knows what an apple is, even people who have never heard of Malus domestica or even Pyrus malus, an alternative name (different circumscription). I don't think that a Malus domestica page should be obligatory, but rather it should only exist when there is enough information about the species independent of its cultivation and products to warrant a separate article. And I don't think that an Apple or two weakens the argument for scientific names for almost every other plant.

But ironically, calling the article Zea mays would put an end to the arguments over whether it is corn or maize--Curtis Clark 04:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I really did mean "Economically and Culturally Significant Plants" not agriculture and horticulture. Agriculture and horticulture ignores the multitude of other uses plants are put to by humans. Trees are not always grown for lumber, for example, sometimes they are simply harvested. Medicinal research? Not always agriculture or horticulture. Chlorogalum pomeridianum is an example of a plant with economic and cultural value if you are a California Indian, that does not fall under Agriculture or Horticulture, but many school children in California looking for it on Wikipedia will want to be able to look up soaproot, instead of Chlorogalum pomeridianum. Isn't that the point of common names for certain plants in the first place?

Economically and Culturally Significant Plants encompasses agritulture and horticulture and forestry and ethnobotany and fiber plants and dye plants and all sorts of ethnobotanical uses and pharmaceuticals.

I don't know that any page is obligatory on Wikipedia. Doesn't somebody have to volunteer the writing of the page for it to appear?

And I'm not sure that corn/maize issue would be resolved as Zea mays redirects to a page titled Teosinte and there is no Wikipedia page for Euchlaena luxurians. KP Botany 17:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Plants with economic and cultural significance can and should have those attributes described in an article titled by the common name. It's useful, sensible and direct as people will always be looking for information about the agricultural aspects of coffee, rather than wanting to know what family Coffea arabica is in and how many cotyledons it has. The article titled 'Coffee' is all about the economic uses and history of these uses of coffee for human beings, and includes a link to botanical information about Coffea arabica and other species. The article titled 'Coffea arabica' discusses the plant from a botanical perspective, includes a paragraph about its economic importance with a link to the Main Article About Its Economic Importance.

I agree with Noah's points about redirects for common names and disambiguation pages. In spite of my push for Wikipedians to adopt a convention of using scientific names to title articles, I think that common names, especially of plants, hold cultural significance in their own right that is lost by scientific names, and I find Wikipedia disappointing in its lack of depth concerning common names of plants. So, yes, to disambiguation pages and a clear system of redirects. Bay Laurel should have a disambiguation page, for example, that takes you to either Umbellularia californica or Laurus nobilis, instead of automatically assuming you mean only the latter.

IMO restriction to "official" common names is POV, and including the wealth of common names that exists for many widespread species is encyclopedic.--Curtis Clark 04:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think a restriction to "official common names" is possible as there is no official authority for common names. Anyone, anywhere, can call any plant anything they like, if it makes it into the common language, it is an official common name. KP Botany 17:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A page with the common name might have a sentence listing it as the common name in a specified region, listing other common names for the same plant, and linking it to the botanical name for the plant, and maybe an explanation of the common name.

Oregon Myrtle: Oregon myrtle is the common name in Oregon for the evergreen tree, Umbellularia californica. Then why the heck Oregonians call it "myrtle." See Umbellularia californica.

California Bay Laurel/California Bay Tree: California bay laurel is one common name in California for the evergreen tree, Umbellularia californica. It is named for its leaves smelling like, and being used as, a pungent version of the European laurel, Laurus nobilis, of the same family. See Umbellularia californica.

Birding is entirely different from botanizing--birders are sane because they have fewer species to identify. It might be easier to just consider a naming convention for plants.

I agree that we should stick to plants on this, but I wonder how much cultural diversity of bird names was inadvertently destroyed by the AOU.--Curtis Clark 04:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably most if not all of it. The discussion of Yucca brevifolia is a good example, the assumption being there are only English-speaking common names for the plant. I suspect the Paiute would disagree with this because the plant provides basketry materials, and important geographical and seasonal indicators to people living in the region. KP Botany 17:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

We naturally focus on English because this is the English WP. The Paiutes can use whatever name they prefer in their WP. Stan 16:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I used that example to show how new words come into a language like English, although I see I did not clarify my purpose, and I apologize for being vague. Many Americans are interested in Indian crafts, basket-making being one of these. For example, in an introduction to Indian basketry by a Miwok, the basket maker used Miwok names for the plants and English-translations of Miwok names. The experienced basket makers in the audience, of all backgrounds, even a British woman, were already familiar with some of the Indian names and translations of these, as this is their vernacular. This is simply one example of an English-speaking peoples, American and English basket makers, who contribute words to the common language from their unique cultural background, and interest, in American Indian basket-making skills.

Most American Indians speak English, this IS their WP, whether or not any language groups have one in another language. In California, plant common names come from Indian languages, from Spanish, from English, and from other sources, and all belong now to the English language as common names for plants. An English speaker need not pick and choose only ones from English or Germanic languages. English is a very adoptive language, and this will always be the case when dealing with common names, that they come from various languages in different regions of the country, depending upon all sorts of factors. And, languages, in general, are dynamic. What is a common name in common usage today may not be tomorrow.

However, again, my post was not clear as to what I meant by my comment. KP Botany 22:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no difficulty from using scientific names if the common name has a small page, calling it a common name for the plant, and listing its etymology. I'm flexible, I just want stability and main articles to be uniform and fully searchable. People want common names, so possibly this will be a useful inclusion? A page with the redirect, including the etymology.

As to which common name to use, this is then taken care of. The common name for Oregon myrtle and the one for California bay have their own little pages. An article about the ethnobotany of Artrhopodium cirratum, for example, would be under its Maori name maikaika, with a redirect to their from New Zealand Rock Lily, a disambiguation page for various plants called maikaika in Maori, and the main page discussing its use by the Maori as a starchy food source.

Absolute yes, imo, to all common names for a taxa being listed somewhere in Wikipedia.

I don't agree with the litmus test for common names being their usage in the article, because it is perfectly correct in an article for a popular audience, to use both the scientific and common name, and to prefer the common name in the text when no confusion arises, when discussing a plant for a popular audience. However, this again begs the question--WHICH common name do you use for the article? Because common names are regionalisms. Do you talk about the California bay in the Umbellularia californica article, or about the Oregon myrtle? Or do you use both? Yet it would be acceptable in the article to use 'bay' (although maybe not myrtle, because it is a common name more accepted for another plant in most regions, hmmm) in the general text. This doesn't mean the article should be titled "California Bay" rather than "Umbellularia californica." Every exception for common names will make all the questions arise, which common name, which region do we prefer for these English speakers. Doing away with common names, other than as their common names, and economically and culturally significant plants, raises exceptions.

Pansy, oak and rose meet the requirements of economically or culturally significant plants and would have their own pages all about their role in human society and culture. Gardening is human culture.

KP Botany 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one to put the proposal to the test: Joshua tree. It has exactly one English name that I know of, no ambiguity with other species, and of the human population within its natural range there are maybe 10-20 people that would recognize Yucca brevifolia :-) . Stan 03:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

True. However, if we use the redirect system, anyone searching for Joshua Tree would be instantly brought to the correct page, even though the title on the top might be unfamiliar to them. Is there a problem? --NoahElhardt 03:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, [1] lists two other common names: Tree yucca and Yucca palm. I've never heard of these either, but the point remains - common names can be problematic. In this particular case, I doubt anyone would have a problem with using Joshua tree rather than Tree yucca... other cases, however, are not so clear. --NoahElhardt 03:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yucca brevifolia is also called the Joshua tree yucca and Joshua tree palm in its range. There probably is a Paiute and maybe a Shoshone name for it, also. These might be used in English by basket weavers all over the world. Californians love their native flora and there are probably thousands of California Native Plant Society members using Yucca brevifolia today, and the CNPS and other native plant societies work to teach their members to be able to use both scientific and local common names for plants. Your point that Joshua tree is an example of a very well accepted common name remains.KP Botany 17:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If article titles don't matter, then they could all be like "Adkjna874lvken0", with all the appropriate redirs, right? If they don't matter, then why do you want to rename a bunch of articles that are under common names now? Why do we have pages and pages of long-established intricate policy on all kinds of naming conventions if none of it matters? The basic situation is that yes, they do matter. Unexpected redirects are disorienting for readers, especially when the title is radically different, not just a variant spelling or capitalization; it takes reading part of the article to find out if the right place has been reached. Unexpected redirects are often vandalism, and need to be doublechecked, which takes time away from just using WP. Poor choice of titles is bad for printouts, and messes up Google searching. Anything that goes against the general vein of WP practice tends to start edit wars that suck up huge amounts of time. Titling is not the most important problem facing plant articles, but we still want a standard that will hold up to the pitiless scrutiny of the rest of the WP community. I personally believe that at least 98% of plant articles will ultimately end up under scientific names, and that's good, but setting up rules to try to force the number to 99% will cause more trouble than it's worth. Stan 04:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Stan, these guidlines are useful for dealing with ambiguity as it arises. However there is no need to move pages wholesale to make then comply to some convention - when the overriding convention on Wikipedia will most likely always be to use the most common English name. Also since this would effect more than this wikiproject shouldn't this discussion be taking place of the Village pump where more people can have input--Peta 04:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason for discussing it here first is to separate the wheat from the chaff and organize our thoughts before presenting it to the community. An unorganized argument will always fail. The intention is to approach a wider community for input once we can come to a reasonable consensus here. As for dealing with ambiguity as it arises, do you mean that we await an argument over the common name title of an article before applying these guidelines? Or say we come upon an article that notes in the text more than one common name--under these proposed guidelines, should we move the page to the scientific name and make the proper redirects immediately in anticipation of a disagreement over the title? Essentially, I'm asking what your opinion is on when we would apply these standards: proactively or reactively? --Rkitko 05:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Stately proactive" works the best for new policy - you need to be proactive so the policy is clearly real, plus lots of people follow along with what they see others doing. But changing everything in one day doesn't give much chance to deal with unforeseen situations, while spreading it out over a couple months (a family/day, perhaps) allows for course correction, and working with recalcitrant editors one at a time, rather than as an organized mob with the pitchforks and flaming torches. 1/2 :-) Stan 14:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying, Stan, that this naming convention would be OK with you as long as it is instated in a manner and pace that allows changes and conflicts to be discussed as they come up, and exceptions to be made where needed? Again, feel free to insert clauses into the above draft - it is only that, a draft, right now. --NoahElhardt 14:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My sense is that collectively we could probably discuss and come to consensus on any particular article, but that we don't know how to express it as precise guidance for randoms who come along looking for a policy. We could take APG II indecisiveness as inspiration :-) and simply say that we recognize that some cases are not obvious, and that if a dispute arises, a notification is posted on this page for people to join discussion on the article's talk page. (But please, no voting!) It's even possible that the number of acceptable common-name articles will be sufficiently small that we can *enumerate* all of them on a subpage of this project, and anybody who wants to add to it must petition specially. Stan 18:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be right there - a subpage with accepted common name page titles makes a sense to me. Basically, there are only a limited number of common names that über-lay people will be searching for. Anyone searching for Rajah Brooke's Pitcher Plant will know enough to not freak out when the page they are redirected to has Nepenthes rajah pasted across the top. If people are well-versed enough to know common names of plants not on the list, then its time they start recognizing and feeling comfortable around scientific names. How do others feel about this idea? --NoahElhardt 18:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Unexpected redirects are disorienting for readers, especially when the title is radically different, not just a variant spelling or capitalization; it takes reading part of the article to find out if the right place has been reached." Yes, now that Curtis brings up the corn/maize issue, I can see where this is already a major problem on Wikipedia. Zea mays redirects to teosinte, as does Zea mexicana and corn redirects to maize. KP Botany 17:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Why regulate for a common sense approach, take Banksia with 76 species article, as an example all the species have articles each used the latin name where it a common name exists the article states this in the first sentence of the lead see Banksia brownii (Banksia brownii was recently promoted to FA) as an example. Where the are common names that are well known then the common name is a redirect to the taxo name. Gnangarra 05:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

One point of consideration is that the use of Taxa naming isnt static, taking my previous example Banksia a number of species have been either changed from subspecies level to species or visa versa. The is also ongoing disputes within the the botanical community of the current evaluations. This isnt isolated only to plants, The Australian Ringneck also recently under went major changes to it species / subspecies levels that altered a lot of the taxa naming for the subspecies which where previously considered seperate species. If its required that taxa naming is used for all articles then it also needs to identify at what point the article names should be altered and how. Cultivars where there is sufficient information and need for a seperate article how are those articles to be named because we could end up with Banksia integrifolia subsp. integrifolia cult. Austraflora Roller Coaster as an article name Gnangarra 06:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"If it's required that taxa naming is used for all articles then it also needs to identify at what point the article names should be altered and how." Good point. There is a reason behind this current madness in the biological sciences, though, we've now got to incorporate DNA evidence into an existing system. If botany itself is in high flux, should users be able to expect a nice safe home when getting real information?

As to article names and search engines, if you google for "Prickly banksia" you get 32 articles returned, but if you search for "Banksia aculeata" you get 132 articles. You may get a LOT more for apple than for Malus domestica, but if you want to know some botanical information, you may have a hard time finding it running through a billion articles about apple.

I think I'm going to give up. Scientific names hold a value, but some people just don't see it, and I'm not sure it's something I can convince people of. Maize/corn/Zea mays/Zea mexicana is already a hopelessly tangled confusion because of the use of common names. I see this all the time on Wikipedia, confusion created entirely by the use of common names making articles and the information they contain inaccessible and sometimes wrong for the unitiated layman. Scientific names arose and were eagerly accepted in the 18th century just because more people were interested in the natural sciences and more people came and saw the confusion created everywhere by the failure to standardize names. KP Botany 17:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You're relatively new, right? Policymaking on WP is usually a slow and frustrating process, but well worth the effort - it's positively magical when hundreds of editors pick up on the policy and fix all the problems while you're sleeping, in articles you didn't even know existed. The existing confusion doesn't come from the common names, it comes from lack of policy. To take an example, taxoboxes were once the most godawful tangles of raw HTML, and every taxobox was randomly different from all the others. Nowadays they are so simple and clean that only the oldest of oldtimers remembers they were once a major source of trouble. Stan 18:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm new, and started off pretty frustrated due to a lack of policy in a different area, but got through that with some terrific help, and would like to contribute.

This lack of policy is what I am trying to address, it results in confusion, impedes accessibility for all users, makes it impossible to tell how complete Wikipedia is, and generally results in experts running for the hills rather than spending time trying to wade through the confusion in order to contribute. And I'm willing to compromise on what I think is useful (not that not compromising will do anything) in order to gain coherence here--and because some people have some valid points about compromise, in particular economically and culturally significant plants listed under common names.

But, really, I think the argument holding any coherent policy formation back is that common names are convenient for some folks, (that's what common names ARE!, convenient names for local flora and fauna!) and they should be used whenever it's convenient for those folk, even if they're confusing and inaccurate and uncontrolled and not standardized and not governed by any authority and not convenient for everyone.

In the end, what it really does is keep people with some real knowledge to contribute away from Wikipedia because they can't wade through the morass--they don't have time, because Wikipedia is not their area of expertise, something else is, the something that Wikipedians want them to contribute, in general. And I would rather spend my time expanding palaeobotany articles than making policy--of course, what I really want is for all of you to have already made the policy I'm most comfortable with, but really, anything will do instead.

I would still like some input from folks about standard formats for plant families, as the basal angiosperms need cleaned up, and expanded in order to be useful. But the plant families are all over the place in style, and some use plant families defined in one system, then place them taxonomically according to another system, with and without common names of the families, and etc., etc. But, again, I fear wading in to the confusion! KP Botany 20:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree we need to establish consistancy, I'm also confusing the arguement by asking the question of how this or that fits to the policy. In general what is being done is this such 95% of articles are using this already, what is trying to be created is a policy for the 5% which are created by people without botanical knowledge. With the example of Corn/Maze maybe there should be two articles the first covers commercial and historical type information with a brief summary of ecology linking to the article under the taxa name that covers the botanical information, this article has a brief history/commercial use section that links to Corn for the more detailed information. Gnangarra

I disagree that you (or anyone) are confusing the argument by asking how something in particular fits into the policy--this makes for clearer thinking up front. Plus, everyone has, thus far, contributed, imo, useful insight into how to make the policy work, no matter whether I agree with their ideas for the policy or not--again, imo. KP Botany 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that people without much botanical knowledge who are arguing strongly for titles of all or most articles by their common names are, unfortunately, limiting their future knowledge of plants with this personal strategy, also. This is one reason why it is important to try to find a way to make scientific names a normal part of research for laymen--it increases their power to understand the topic in a way that common names cannot. KP Botany 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There are probably cases where folks who are not botanically sophisticated could write a more useful article on a topic, particularly when it comes to a topic like apples or corn--a botanist might miss the main focus of the article: how humans use the product. Then there are problems that arise internal with that lack of botanical knowledge and lead to nonsense, like "Mazes have been built with walls and rooms, with hedges, turf, or with paving stones of contrasting colors or designs, or in fields of crops such as corn or, indeed, maize." From the article on Maze . Hmmmm, in fields of corn or, indeed, corn? KP Botany 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

But remember that "corn" in English originally meant any sort of grain (hence "barleycorn"), so that a wheat maze would be generically a corn maze, and many people in England might well still understand it this way. I do agree that the wording in the article is strange, but check out the discussion page to see how emotional people can get over something as simple as a common name. More evidence that common names are by their very nature POV.--Curtis Clark 14:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Names alone don't express POV, but they do affect communication in critical ways. To some extent the idea of using Latin has been a failure, in that 200 years ago every educated person knew Latin, and so "brevifolia" was just as meaningful as "shortleaf" is to English speakers - but now Latin education has withered away, and the scientific names have become random unpronounceable strings used almost exclusively by specialists. Bird people have reacted by formalizing the use of English, a similar effort is apparently contemplated for mammals. Fish people have been regularizing English names, commercial fishermen not being inclined to take up ichthyological systematics. :-) Puts WP in a difficult position, because our audience includes both scientific and lay. Stan 16:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I emphatically don't buy the "random unpronounceable strings": ask any nine-year-old boy how to pronounce Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor or even Deinonychus. And if a commercial fisherman uses a name different from a fishmonger ("Chilean sea bass" comes to mind), how can that be anything that a different point of view?--Curtis Clark 03:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, touche. Perhaps "hard-to-read" is a better term - humans are much better at learning spoken words than written ones. I go to Nevada Native Plant Society meetings and hear many plant sci names for the first time there, often they're not nearly as complicated as they looked in print... On POV, it's kind of stretching to ascribe very much POV to choice of names, also a little dangerous, because there are many people who would fight edit wars *against* scientific names because it's a "science POV". When you invoke a core policy like NPOV, it's an invitation for every non-expert to come in and pile on. Stan 21:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Even more than 200 years ago Botanical Latin was a language all its own, and Latin was already falling out of favor among the educated. There are a lot of words that had to be adopted or corrupted for Botanical Latin nomenclature, for example, because ancient Greek and Latin herbals did not include such intensive morphology as used by Linneaus to distinguish species.

Commercial fishermen often fish just one fish per season, or even per year depending upon how lucrative that fish is, and don't necessarily need to know a lot of fish names. Yet fisheries sites link to PDFs with Latin names prominant for information about the fish species. I suspect no general fisherman has to know a thousand fish names. Bird watchers? Well, they have fewer species in any area to concern themselves with, a single paperback covers all of California, while the Jepson Manual weighs a ton, if you've ever had to backpack it. And the bird names are standardized, as I understand, for just one country. So, they're American common names, not English speaking--not sure of this.

The Jepson Manual weighs a ton even if you don't have to backpack it.

The American Ornithologists' Union names are indeed American. They are also more highly regulated than scientific names, in that they standardize "generally accepted" science and don't allow for alternative circumscriptions.--Curtis Clark 03:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately plants are a bit different, there are even difficult questions about just what a species is that are less easy to answer with Mayr-like certainty that species really exist in botany.

As one who spent a career studying plant speciation, IMO this is totally bogus.--Curtis Clark 03:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What's bogus, that Mayr thinks species are real entities, something I agree with, but is not particularly popular in these days of doing away with species, or that species are more difficult in botany than elsewhere, or what? What about all the hybrid oaks that even lugging the Jepson Manual around won't help you identify? "Many more hybrids have been named but are not included here." Are they really hybrids or species? Plants aren't different? KP Botany 19:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"...that species really exist in botany." I gave a presentation many years ago, of which I only retain the abstract. More recently, a graduate student looked at shrubby Mimulus, a group in which hybridization is reputed to have eliminated the species boundaries; her thesis and a poster are available online. Hybrids have to be examined globally. If your only experience were a mule farm, "horse" and "donkey" might seem like abstractions, and looking at a hybrid oak, or manzanita, or monkeyflower, or Encelia, can be rather daunting. But ouside of the areas of hybridization, the species maintain their distinctiveness, and in the cases of some oaks, have for more than 30 million years.

Species are indeed real entities; they are the units of phylogeny.--Curtis Clark 21:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The common names for the thousands of plants in California that don't already have them would just require exceptions every time, or another organization tasked with assigning common names for the unnamed, while other plants hog a dozen names to themselves. Two lay people talking about a plant using common names, don't know if they are discussing the same plant by name alone. They may be using the same name and discussing two different plants, or using two different names and discussing the same plant.

The educated lay person will wind up having to use scientific names for plants at some point, unless they only look up one plant, or economically valuable plants their entire lives. Limiting lay people to common names alone does not benefit the dissemination of knowledge, it simply limits that particular lay person to what knowledge they can find.

Why not find a way of making scientific names more accessible? The alternative, common names for some, scientific names for others, just keeps people out of the world of science, otu of exchanging information, and out of knowing exactly what information they are exchanging, when the whole intention of scientific names is to share the identity and knowledge of an organism with ease. I can send a scientific name to a speaker of Dutch or Polish and she can know what plant I am talking about. But what if she translates the common name, and the common name in her native tongue does not allude to the same aspect of the plant? If it's a weed here and native there, with a cultural value, this may well be the case. Scientific names are simply tools for discussing organisms and making sure we're discussing the same thing. Laymen can and do use them all of the time. Encyclopedias are about sharing human knowledge, not limiting it.

Pronouncing Latin plant names is not that difficult. Wikipedia can include an article on just that topic if necessary and helpful. One vowel sound per syllable, and pronounce each syllable has gotten me through years of discussing organisms with scientists. Only a non-scientist has ever corrected my pronunciation, and only once. IMO policies which exclude knowledge from a population, which is what I see using common names as doing, should be very carefully looked at for what they will achieve. I don't see using common names as ultimately making easier the dispersal of botanical knowledge to lay people. I see it as exculsionary. Science belongs to the world, as does our biodiversity. It's not the private domain of an elite few. Bringing scientific names to laymen breaks down barriers, it doesn't erect them, imo. Frankly, imo, we should be forcing scientists to include common names for plants in their articles, rather than removing scientific names from ours.

Anyway, that's my opinion, again. Scientific names are time-honored valuable tools. People were so amazed at how valuable binomial nomenclature was when Linneaus published his books that they quickly adopted his techniques without debate, only later codifying them. We live in an international world and they hold the same value today as they did in the 18th century. The plant world is too big and too dispersed and too international and too complex to go with common names as the rule. Common names come from many languages and there will be major disagreements about which to use because most people will prefer the ones from the culture the identify most with. KP Botany 22:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I've said this before, but I'll say it again: common names are an important part of cultural heritage, and standardizing common names standardizes culture. There was a time when most people were familiar with at least the commonest 500 or so organisms in their habitat, and had common names for all, which might very well be different from the common names used 500 km away, even though the language of both areas was nominally English. It seems to me that as Wikipedians we should use scientific names in most cases in order to provide a framework to enumerate and preserve this diversity.--Curtis Clark 03:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"It seems to me that as Wikipedians we should use scientific names in most cases in order to provide a framework to enumerate and preserve this diversity." I like that. I find common names inconvenient and am often ready to do away with them completely because I've memorized so few, but from my ancient background in cultural anthropology and studying ethnobotany of plants I know they have tremendous value to the users and can give all humans clue to another's culture. Also, common names often have interesting origins, giving the linguist in all of us a little extra information. KP Botany 19:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

the other point I raised was the assumption of adopting this as policy, and then asking a hypothetical how does this fit question. When a similar naming issue occured at the Wikiproject Australia it wasnt until the hypothetical how do we name this started to be discussed that ommitions and errors in the suggested policy were highlighted and addressed. Gnangarra 23:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds lovely, always, until you try to put it into practice and run into an uncovered exception. Excellent point. I do like things to be done my way and quickly (who doesn't really?), but appreciate that it is usually neither desirable (either my way or quickly) nor efficient because of the time wasted in failing to consider what can go wrong. KP Botany 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

suggest the policy states ...that all common names are either a straight redirect or a dab page withs links to the correct taxa names.

for cultivars they use the common name with (cultivar). and that the 1st sentence of the lead states the taxaname linked to that article

example:-

Banksia integrifolia subsp. integrifolia cult. Austraflora Roller Coaster this cultivar would have the article Banksia Austraflora Roller Coaster (cultivar)

the lead would open 'Banksia Austraflora Roller Coaster is a cultivar from the Banksia species Banksia integrifolia subspecies integrifolia ...

how does this sound. That still leaves the question of how and when to alter page names if there is a change in naming. Gnangarra 04:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably the most common form of existing cultivar article just uses single quotes around the cultivar name, following the rules in cultivar. As for responding to nomenclatural changes, I think it's sufficient to just let people move the article whenever they become aware of the change - ideally adding a mention of the authority in the references section. Articles get moved all the time; an energetic person could probably unilaterally move a thousand plant articles to sci names before anybody even remarked on it. Stan 05:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking back at the proposal, I don't see that we're actually in much disagreement here. There is already an exception for "significant" cases, so how it works in practice really depends on how often the exception is granted. If we add to the policy that the exceptions are granted on a case-by-case basis, then they will tend to be very few, because most people will go along with the sci names rather than do the work of assembling the evidence for the exception. If someone does go to that effort and comes up with good justifications, then those will be the cases where the common name does make for a sensible title. With this edit, I think the policy is sufficiently strong to expand into a proposed new naming convention. Stan 22:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so most everyone seems to have come to some sort of consensus. So what's the next step? Let's keep the ball rolling. --NoahElhardt 15:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Create Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) and link it in at the obvious place in Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) has the right boilerplate to start with, just hack it up. Talk page should be seeded with a link back to here, so busyb...uh, esteemed colleagues who have the naming convention page on their watchlist can get the background. There is a section at the end for "proposed guidelines", but I don't think we need to be that timid. Stan 19:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So should I just slap in the proposal as it stands now (above)? --NoahElhardt 22:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It'd probably be good to follow the format used on the fauna page.--Peta 05:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What fauna page? Link please? KP Botany 19:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to get in the "case-by-case exception" too, but otherwise yes. Stan 03:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure things will crop up that we didn't think of, but I'm fine with it as is, thus far. KP Botany 19:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, I've started the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) page. It really only deals with the Article Titles as discussed above, but other material can be incorporated from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) or something. What do you think? --NoahElhardt 23:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look it over. Thanks for posting the links. I am rather shocked to find that native New Zealand birds in Wikipedia are given "official" common names from Australia, and this is the example of using "official" common names on the Faunal Naming Conventions page! I think the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) is exactly what happens if you use common names, though: you wind up dismissing an entire culture. I suspect this might be because Australia has official guidelines for common names, but New Zealand doesn't? Curtis, do you know? I don't think this will be a robust policy for those whose culture has been made irrelevant. Even more I appreciate this attempt to set an international protocal for plant articles using scientific names and continuing to include as many common names as possible. Thanks to everyone who continued to remind me how important common names are. KP Botany 00:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles to be expanded

I've been taking a bit of a break but still keeping an eye on some articles, and I am starting to see the talk pages for hundreds of plant articles added to a category called Category:Articles to be expanded. I'm afraid I don't understand the purpose of creating such a category and using it to tag pages upon pages of articles. How is this different from the existing stub tags? There are thousands of articles in Wikipedia that could be expanded, we all know it, there are thousands of stub tags out there already, and I don't think tagging thousands more with a "please expand this article" message is going to accomplish much unless it can magically cure us of the need to sleep, or the need to spend time earning a living (just a couple of the things that are interfering with my own time and ability to edit Wikipedia articles!). MrDarwin 00:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't see the plant articles, just tons of talk pages that say they need to be expanded, many of them connected to well done, complete and credible articles. Someone (88.7.53.191) seems to think that talk pages are something that should have lots on them, whether or not it is needed. Or maybe this is a bot or something? It makes the Articles to be expanded page worthless, though, Mr. Darwin, so your suggestion that stub tags are sufficient (which seems to be the same thing as an "Article that needs to be expanded" tag to a beginner) is accepted in essence, if not in practice. KP Botany 01:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I see it as pointless for two reasons: first, it's telling us something we all already know--that the vast majority of the thousands of plant species (and in many cases genus) articles are little more than stubs and really need to be expanded--and second, creating a category for hundreds of thousands of completely different kinds of articles isn't the least bit helpful when most editors work on particular kinds of articles and there are only so many editors to work on those articles in the first place. (I could understand adding plant stub tags, as that would at least bring plant-related articles to the attention of the editors who specialize on plant-related articles.)

I'm not going to remove the tags as it would take forever, and would probably be labeled as vandalism, but to see the plant articles that are being so tagged by one editor, see Bhadani's contributions page. This guy must be spending every waking moment doing this. I've already posted a comment on his talk page; is anybody else willing to send him a message that this tagging isn't particularly helpful? MrDarwin 13:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed a few but only from those articles I've personally edited in the past; I sure don't have time to go through the hundreds of others! The main page for Category:Articles to be expanded says "This category is for articles that are beyond a stub, but still need to be expanded with additional information or details" so I'm going to recommend that the expansion tag be deleted from any plant article that already has a stub tag; in most cases if there isn't a stub tag, it would be more useful to add one in place of the expansion tag. MrDarwin 14:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Another in a long series of semi-pointless tags I'm afraid. Tags and categories don't require any reading or research, and so there are a lot more editors fiddling with those than adding actual content. There are some articles I created two or even three years ago, and the edit history between then and now consists solely of tagging, categorization, and spelling fixes, with not a single addition to my original content. Stan 05:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually completely pointless, in my opinion. I checked several articles that were so tagged, and in every case they already had plant stub tags. I've gone ahead and deleted the expand tag from such articles, but so far only ones I have personally edited in the past. MrDarwin 14:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This might be a better discussion to have on the Village Pump (WP:VPP), since it's a mish-mash of articles from all over the place. I've seen this tag popping up on my watchlist too over the past few days, and like you I just don't see the point (rather than feeding someone's editcountitis). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I did find the reason behind Bhadani's obsessive adding of useless, pointless and redundant tags. He/she is devoted to climbing the List of Wikipedians by number of edits page, as indicated on the homepage. In other words, suffering from Editcountitis--I still don't quite understand if edit count is the sole means to being an administrator and what being one does other than make you obsessed with edit counts. I also learned what a sock puppet is this week, but have decided I've learned too much in certain areas and contributed too little of value. I am working on fixing, or at least making usable, botany and biology articles in obscure areas. I just redid the systematics article and would appreciate comments, also I'm rewriting the embryophytes article and would appreciate comments as it goes up.

What in Plants is most in need of being refurbished/expanded to make the botany on Wikipedia better? What stubs, in other words, are most important? I think there are articles outside of taxa that need work that might be best got under control before moving systematically through families, genera and species. Suggestions? Locations to look? Thanks--it is more fun trying to put together something useful than picking at little bits here and there. KP Botany 03:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about stubs, but a series of topics I think might be underrepresented are communions of plants - groups of plants often growing together with their relations. Examples would be Atriplici-Cirsietum arvensis, Caricion davallianae, Magnocaricion, Calthion, Molinion caeruleae. 06:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the monocot and dicot pages are both pretty weak and fundamental. For general botany related topics, plant physiology is a stub and the page on plant anatomy is basically - and soon to be technically nonexistent if someone doesn't write a decent summary guide to the subject.--Peta 06:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There are some taxa that are unusually scientifically interesting, such as Eriogonum, and all the article has is the tantalizing mention of "speciation", without any explanation. Botany is supposed to be a fascinating subject, right? :-) Put in what's most fascinating, then if you referred to something in the process and its description is inadequate, expand on that article a little, and so on. Different people have different habits, but empirically our best material tends to come from a burst of enthusiasm for a topic (whether expert or amateur), while dutiful grinding through lists gets wearisome and uninspiring. (In fact that's where many stubs come from - people start articles before having assembled the collection of interesting facts to report.) Stan 14:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, I will look at these, as they all interest me. The plant communities page is a particularly painful disaster, one of the problems of using an old source for a modern and dynamic science, and could turn people completely off of using Wikipedia, and the plant anatomy lack of a page is shameful, considering how much basic plant anatomy is used in all the species and family articles. Stan, I won't lose sight of what you say, because I'm naturally lazy enough that if it doesn't obsess me, I won't touch it. Excellent point though, and I will add it's as wearisome and uninspiring for both the producer and the recipient. KP Botany 17:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

PS I am more obsessed with Eriogonum than with many other things in botany. KP Botany 17:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Paratype

Somebody might want to keep an eye on the Paratype article and its most recent edits. I simply don't have time to deal with another Nomen nudum, Nomen conservandum, etc.-type dispute right now. MrDarwin 18:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is incomprehensibly useless, as are most biological type articles on Wikipedia, due only in part to their heavily pedantic writing style. And its owner seems determined that it remain so, so it might not be worth anyone's time to keep their eye on it. (Although, one of the articles was recently reworded to mostly English.) There should probably be a Wikipedia warning tag for articles like this.

I have an awkward writing style, and I greatly appreciate the many members of WP:Plants who translate my sometimes heavy and pedantic, and sometimes just awkward, articles and corrections into Encyclopediac English for the masses. Thanks. KP Botany 22:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There is much, much more discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, although you may not have the stamina (or stomach) to read through it all. I am taking a short break from Wikipedia and don't expect to be doing much editing in the next few days. However, I am very glad to see more editors taking part in Wikipedia who apparently have some knowledge of systematic botany. Good luck. MrDarwin 01:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute at Cannabis

There is currently a dispute concerning WP:NPOV#Undue weight taking place at Talk:Cannabis. The taxobox lists three species in the genus. The article text says "Whether the different strains of Cannabis constitute a single species (Cannabis sativa L.) or multiple species has been a contentious issue for well over two centuries" and goes on to describe the position of Schultes, recent work by Hillig and Mahlberg, and states that "Some authors now refer to C. indica as the subspecies Cannabis sativa subsp. indica and C. ruderalis as the variety Cannabis sativa var. ruderalis reflecting the fact they may not be distinct enough to be classified as separate species. Several other botanical names have also been applied" with reference to IPNI. Small and Cronquist (1976) is given as a reference, but not discussed.

This gives equal weight to the opinions of small minorities while barely mentioning and then marginalizing what seems to be the most widely accepted view. ITIS,APNI,GRIN, Plants

Comments would be greatly appreciated. Chondrite 18:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain these are real opinions, but rather compilations of sources. When I write up plant articles about a specific species I'm not allowed to use IPNI for name verification, or any of these other sources you've listed. I believe the current research is at the stage where one recent authority considers it to be a single species while another divides it into 3. I have not read either source. Has anyone doing the discussing read these sources, 2005ish, one a monograph, the other an article or chapter in a book? Frankly, there are just too many words over there, something I have been lately guilty of in Afghanistan. Those wanting 3 species have hemmed and hawed repeatedly about 'species' calling them subraces, cultivars, admitting it's only the language of breeders. It would have been better to just close it, saying, "You consider them only races, so list only one species." IMO. Why do the breeders want them to be species so badly? I doubt I would be any help, so I'll stay out of it, unless and until I read either source. KP Botany 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Can I clarify that the article at Cannabis is attempting to describe a debate within the plant science community, and in order to accurately represent the weight of the various arguments, it would be useful to determine what, if any, Scientific consensus currently exists? It seems that compilations of sources such as the links provided above would give a fair indication of just that.

Recent work cited in support of multi-species arguments include: Hillig and Mahlberg (2004), Green(2005) and New Scientist. The work described in New Scientist apparently did not end up getting published in FSI or any other major journal. Hillig and Mahlberg may be "right" but at the same time may not yet be "widely accepted."

"Lumpers versus splitters" in this genus goes back to Lamarck. In the 1960s and 1970s this acquired some legal importance as several attempts were made in the US and Canada to defend against criminal prosecution on the basis that "Cannabis sativa L" is proscribed by law, but the material in question was derived from C. indica or C. ruderalis. Schultes and Emboden (splitters) participated in some of these cases on behalf of the defense, while Small and Cronquist (lumpers) participated on behalf of the prosecution. This hasn't been a legal issue for a long time, but might be one factor contributing to current popularity of multi-species models in the cannabis community.

-- Chondrite 23:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Flagging of fossil taxa?

As I was looking today at the pages on plant classfication, and some of the other pages for higher ranked taxa within angiosperms, I noted a huge number of redlinked family names I had never heard of (e.g., see the APG II system article). I am supposing - maybe incorrectly - that some of these are fossil taxa, which would explain why they are red, why I haven't heard of them, and why their placement in the classification is so uncertain. However, I am curious as to why, if these are fossils, there is no use of the dagger, which traditionally indicates fossil taxa, and is easy enough to insert in WP articles. Is there no perceived value among botanists of knowing extinct from extant taxa? If there is, why not insert a clause into the Project guidelines asking editors to clearly indicate fossil taxa? Dyanega 18:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The APG system only treats extant taxa; the redlinked families are simply those for which no article exists (yet). Many of them are new families, or old and long-synonymized families that have been resurrected, as molecular phylogenies show that many of the traditionally recognized plant families are paraphyletic or polyphyletic. Angiosperm classification is in a state of rapid flux right now, and the dust probably won't settle for several more years. Unfortunately there are relatively few botanical editors at Wikipedia, and even fewer with access to the relevant literature. MrDarwin 18:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the reds are monogeneric, and could just be redirected to the appropriate genus, with a note in the genus article, but as MrDarwin sez, one needs the right literature as authority. I haven't been to the library myself in ages... Stan 05:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at one of the red links, and this seems to be a small but normal APG-family, the french wiki had a stub on it which I partially translated. TeunSpaans 08:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Teun, that was very helpful. As it turns out this family has only existed since 1985 (although the genus itself was described in 1840). I just spent about an hour doing a relatively minor rewrite of the article, primarily providing additional information, references, and links. And that was starting with an article that somebody else had already written. This is a good example of why there are so many redlinked families in Wikipedia; actually it's amazing how few there are, considering the short time that Wikipedia has existed, and the limited number of editors available for writing or editing articles. MrDarwin 15:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like good work, MrDarwin! TeunSpaans 20:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Angiosperm Phyologeny website, recommended citation

Three years after its publication, the APG II system is already gathering cobwebs. In addition to APG II, the Missouri Botanical Garden's Angiosperm Phylogeny website is cited and linked in numerous plant articles although in most cases its author (Peter F. Stevens) is not mentioned. As this is apparently the work of a single individual and the AP website is not the work of, or directly affiliated with, the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (the website and the APG have been confused in some articles) I would recommend that it be cited as the website itself suggests it be cited (while including a link to the website), e.g.:

Stevens, P. F. (2001 onwards). Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Version 7, May 2006.

Because the website is continuously updated, including the version and date will alert readers of an article that a particular version was referenced, and that the link may take them to a version updated since then. For the most part it follows the APG II system, but is much more up-to-date, incorporates the results of many recent references published since 2003, and is much more informative. It also differs from the APG II system in several respects, largely on the basis of this more recent research. Particularly because many botanical articles use the APG II classification, which is already out of date, for many groups it's critical to reference something more recent. I would also suggest that anybody using or citing this website read its introduction carefully. I'm not sure how this new (post 2003) data might be incorporated into the Taxoboxes, as those apparently reflect the APG II classification. In general I have not added or edited taxoboxes, in part because they represent a particular POV and may not reflect up-to-date information. MrDarwin 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Community ban of Brya?

User:Brya has been blocked from editing and there is a discussion going on here as to whether this should be a temporary or indefinite block or ban. If you have an opinion on whether Brya should be blocked from further editing indefinitely, I have started a separate poll here. MrDarwin 19:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Experts needed: Talk:Vaccinium vitis-idaea

Could both a UK and a US expert please comment on that discussion? Perhaps experts from other countries could help too. Thanks! --Espoo 07:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

help on species name

I took this ptotos in Turkey this year, tr:Kullanıcı:Ugur Basak/galeri, but don't know their species name. Can anyone help on this? Thanks --Ugur Basak 11:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

tr:Resim:Resim15.jpg appears to be fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium). --Rkitko 18:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Tropical plants

Hello! I live in the Amazon and would love to contribute to the Plants project - not articles, as I do not know much about botany, but images. However, I do not know where to start or even how to go about sharing the pictures I take. I suppose I could post them on Commons (to which I already contribute), and have someone identify the plants and put them on their respective Wikipedia pages, but this may be too complcated a plan. What do you think? How may I help out? Marialadouce 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion: If you have self made photos of plant or animal species, please consider uploading them on commons. If you upload them on the english wiki, only the english wiki can use them. If you upload them at commons, all wikipedias (english, german, french, spanish, etc) can use your photo with the same ease as if it resides on their own wikipedia. You will have a much wider public for your cecropia pictures. See also commons:Category:Urticaceae

In fact, there is a project going on commons:Commons:WikiProject Plants to photograph all species of plants. Pix from the amazon region would be very, very welcome, especially if you can somehow which species they belong too.

TeunSpaans 19:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

People do post-upload identification all the time - they even have a special place commons:Category:Unidentified plants, so upload away. What I've discovered from doing photos in the field is that it can be very hard to get a species id from just one or two photos. ID chances are better if you include shots of the base of the plant, the back sides of flowers, closeups of leaves and stems, etc. Don't forget shots showing the overall setting - river bank, etc, and mention the location. (At least in Nevada, it can matter on which side of the mountain range the picture was taken.) Stan 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! You have all been very welcoming. KP Botany asked me where I lived, to gather as much information as possible on the plants in my photos. I live in Kourou, French Guiana - a faraway, forgotten outpost of France. Not much attention is paid to this little corner of the world, thus leaving the rainforest largely untouched (I think about 97% or so of Guiana is essentially rainforest). There are problems, of course, due to gold mining (mercury is dumped in the rivers), but generally it's a very green place.

I've uploaded various random images to Commons before, mostly of Kourou and some pertaining to articles I've translated for French and English Wikpedia, so I think I'll be able to upload pictures of plants more or less easily starting tomorrow. If I run into any problems, I'll be sure to ask over at commons:Commons:WikiProject Plants, which I just joined. I expect I'll be stuffing the commons:Category:Unidentified plants soon with all kinds of mysterious (to me) flora. I'm rather curious to know what exactly I'm living among.

Happy gardening! Marialadouce 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Image:Cecropia1_frenchguiana.jpg Possible Cecropia. Or not. Having seen the photos KP Botany linked to on my Talk page, I am no longer sure if this is a Cecropia. I have, however, seen the kind pictured in KP's examples. I just have to remember where I have seen them before in town so I can go take pictures of them soon. Marialadouce 21:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost certainly not Cecropia (the leaves are simple and entire, Cecropia leaves should be deeply lobed or compound). Maybe a Diospyros, but it could be a Mora or even a mango. Guettarda 04:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly a member of the Lauraceae, also. The leaves are rather generic, so more information would have to be known, but not a Cecropia. When this tree flowers, get some pictures, though. I've been looking at the flora of French Guiana and it is very interesting. KP Botany 21:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I agree, it could be a Lauraceae as well. The smell of the leaves & the inner bark's a good clue there. Guettarda 23:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Kourou not so forgotten as you might think - not only do I have an extensive collection of the stamps back when French Guiana issued its own, but the university library here just happens to have a two-volume work on the plants of French Guiana. I never imagined I might have an opportunity to use it... Stan 02:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ecologically it's very important, but politically it's seen as a backwater, which is why infrastructure and pretty much anything one takes for granted in Europe - big supermarkets, well-stocked libraries, good hospitals - is sadly lacking. I suspect racism is also a factor (most people here are descendants of African slaves). This morning I'll be out and about, so I will take my camera along and perhaps take a picture of the elusive Cecropia whose location(s) in town I have forgotten. I may also take out a book on tropical (Antilles-Guiana-Réunion) gardening from the small library so I can help with finding the scientific names of the plants in my photos. Cheers. Marialadouce 11:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Another plant-stub sub-type proposed: Ranunculales-stub

I've proposed a further order-level stub type for the plants, as the parent is oversized again: please see the proposal, here. Alai 05:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Project banner

A bee pollinating a water-lily

This looks like a great project, but I can't tell if you all have a project banner or not yet. If you don't, I would ask you to consider whether this one looks like something you might want to use. Thanks. Badbilltucker 20:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice banner, but I know nothing about banners. Will posting the banners put the pages on a list? Possibly a less derived plant as the image? Maybe a water lily? Although I guess the rose has suitable interesting horticultural aspects. KP Botany 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice banner, but I think the scope of the plants project would make adding banners a bit over the top, if not a full-time pursuit :). KP, these are added to the talk pages of articles of concern to various wikiprojects, and are actually quite helpful if you're unaware that a project is around, and for allowing project members to use as a reference for watchlist building. For plants (let alone TOL) this would involve many thousands of articles.

We already can keep track of the articles covered by WP:PLANTS by just starting from Category:Plants and moving down through subcats. At least one of our descendant projects (Carnivourous plants) uses one ({{Carnivorous Plants}}) but if we started adding it to every talk page about a plant? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 22:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I forgot about categories--although I did actually put them in the last 2 or 3 articles I created. And it's not like I'm going to be the one volunteering to put the banners anywhere. Still, it is rather nicely done. I'll be sure to ask Badbilltucker to do the one for a project I'd like to get a group working on. KP Botany 00:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A few other problems - that doesn't look like a bee - more likely a wasp or a wasp mimic, and iirc, waterlilies are not bee pollinated. Guettarda 17:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Copy edit request

Can someone look over the Zoysia matrella article. I tried to include everything, basic article, categories, references all in one fell swoop, for once, even finding a not particularly good copyright free image, and even finally learning how to do the footnoted references. However, as many already know, my writing style is a bit heavy; and I couldn't find the Wikipedia reference on the style for how to do the references to distinguish between specific footnotes and a general reference. Also, I'm a bit lame in the grasses, so it wouldn't hurt to have a grass person look at it. Thanks. KP Botany 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've left some comment on the articles talk page Gnangarra 09:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added a note on the talk page too; will have a go at looking out some info some time - MPF 01:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, anyone who wants to change the dialect to Commonwealth English is welcome to. KP Botany 20:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this belong?

Project paranormal has recently added a page for a cryptozoological plant called the Umdhlebi, which may or may not exist (probably the latter). How does this fit in with project plant (if at all) and what infobox should it have (if any)?

perfectblue 16:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Plenty of paranormal and cryptozoological articles (what's the general name for a plant or anmila cryptic species?) on Wikipedia. Only thing is, does it say it was found in a jungle? Zululand is not jungle territory. I don't know that it really fits in with plants, so much as with hoaxes and similar items, but I think the black infobox you created looks fine. KP Botany 20:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fresh eyes needed for Head (botany)

I almost completely rewrote Head (botany) (and capitulum, but that's another thing) and would appreciate opinions, thanks. Finding references proved to be a bitch, but I think I did fine. Circeus 21:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm reading up on it. Will see if I can add anything. KP Botany 20:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* I just noticed Pseudanthium and Cyathium. What do you think, is a merger in order? Circeus 16:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It also turns out the topic itself is HUGE, and that I've never really studied it as such and don't know WHERE to start--I got a few papers, though. I think for now that a merge is in order, and, posting a merge proposal may result in more input from knowledgable and interested parties. And what about the Proteaceae? And Araceae? Should all of this just go in the article on inflorescence, and that be greatly expanded? I need to spend some time on background research and then consider it, to see if I can get a better handle on the situation, until then, your suggestion of a merger seems like a good idea, with a lead paragraph tying these groups together. Good catch on the original need to up the quality on these, though. KP Botany 17:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a merger into inflorescence is best indeed (and similar to how a handful articles on parts redirect to leaf and flower). It seems to me as if quite a few articles in category:plant morphology could use merging (I merged peduncle (botany) to inflorescence and phyllode into a newly created petiole (botany), to which merging stipule might be a goot idea).

BTW, ow does a split of category:plant morphology for flower, leaf, fruit, stem and root sounds like? (see category:architectural elements for a similar split) Circeus 18:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't catch if you put a merge sign up or not, but I think for now just expanding the inflorescence article would be the simplest and most useful. Gee, peduncle had its own page? I'm not sure petiole deserves its own, much less phyllode. How about all 3 (plus stipule) into leaf? Leaf should really be a better article.

I'd like to get at least Curtis's imput on the morphology recategorizing, probably a couple of other folks. Shoot into stem, leaf, flower and fruit, is handy, and root looks good, but a more trained eye into reading the logistics would be good. I appreciate the organizational time and effort you put into making sense of these plant articles. KP Botany 00:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Peduncle is a disambiguation page (as is Pedicel). A definition should still be available somewhere whatever we do with the links themselves. I created petiole (botany) because of many links that were redirected there. I'm seriously wondering about the separation of content between leaf and leaf shape right now, though.... Circeus 21:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(resetting tabs)

The head article needs a bit more tweaking... could also use some more photos for descoid heads and "ray flower only" heads (I forget the name for those). If someone in a non-frozen area has a razor and a digital camera, a cross section would be a major improvement (I'll fish around on commons, but I don't think there are any photos like that).

The leaf shape article might need renaming as some sort of glossary, and have terms describing margins, pubescence, glossiness/glaucousness, etc. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put any more images because that would have lengthened the article needlessly, although I did provide links to article with images.

Terms need harmonizing with leaf itself. Maybe a text-form paragraph in Leaf with a link to the list will make the thing easier to maintain? Circeus 01:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, a gallery along the bottom would be nice, and wouldn't be excessive. More pix the better, IMO, especially when describing a complicated organ like flower heads.

Not sure what to do about leaf and the terminology. I've seen snippets here and there which make me think glossaries are now considered WP:NOT, but they are permitted on both wiktionary and wikibooks, so perhaps that page should just be transwikied? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Leaf shedding

What are currently the accepted theories over this topic? Color change in leaves and deciduous appear to disagree, and I'm not sure what to think of Ford's paper, for which I can't find more recent review off-hand. It's also 20 years old, and I can't believe there hasn't been anything pertinent written since. Circeus 17:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it isn't a matter of "why" trees drop leaves, but rather why they do it when they do. Most of what I know about leaf-lifespan has been discussed in terms of energy budgets - species with short leaf-lifespans are more likely to be found on more fertile soils (where the replacement cost is low relative to the increased efficiency (photosynthetic and transpirational) and lower maintenance of younger leaves. On poorer soils the cost of replacement is higher (relative to the available resources), so it's better to have longer-lived leaves. If you are going to keep your leaves less than a year and you live in a seasonal environment, it makes sense to synchronise your flush and leaf drop. If you keep them more than a year, it doesn't. This is especially apparent in brevi-deciduous species, which drop their leaves at the start of the dry season, and then replace them, either immediately or a short while later.

The whole flowering/fruiting while leafless things is probably a matter of making the most of leaflessness (when your flowers are either most accessible to the wind or to pollinators), rather than a motivation for being leafless. Guettarda 19:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Abscission would be the best place to discuss the whys of it... that article needs serious expansion. Last I read, the red and yellow pigments are antioxidants used to prevent genetic damage, but that was in an article I read several years ago. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Magnoliophytina

I have been recently editing taxoboxes on plants in Slovenian Wikipedia. What causes me some trouble is the choice of the classification system. For example, it is common in Slovenian taxoboxes to include the subdivision Magnoliophytina. Why is this not common here as well? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hereby I want to bring to attention a comment that I have found at Talk:Malvaceae

"User:Brya brings up the point that the taxoboxes are excessively rigid. Take a look at how they dealt with it in the French Wikipedia: Article on Tilia which presents both the "classical" and the "phylogenetic" classifications for the families in the taxobox. A possible way to go for disputed families until there is a clear consensus among botanists and thereby reducing the confusion of us poor laymen. This is just a suggestion which you might want to talk over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants or Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. I got here and checked out the discussion as a result of a comparision I made at Talk:Tamarack Larch. (Where some chiming in on my proposed move/rename would be appreciated). Luigizanasi 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)" --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

40 000+ free images

Plants of Hawaii is the index to pictures by a pair of USGS photographers (that's {{PD-USGov-Interior-USGS}}). I just uploaded a bunch at commons:Verbascum thapsus, and I'm sure there will be much to be used. Circeus 13:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, I feel some doubt about the identification of commons:verbascum thapsus.jpg. It looks entirely different from what I know. ;-)

Doublecheck for Verbascum thapsus image attribution

Can somebody has a closer look at the attribution for commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus plant1.jpg, commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus aa.jpg and commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus bgiu.jpg? The V. thapsus I know (I have never been faced with other Verbacum species) have leaves that are not cuneate, and way less large than these. The second image's flowers seems way too large for V. thapsus. Could they be V. densiflorum (=V. thapsiforme)? And the third is obviously something else: not only would you be unlikely to find so many flowers at once on a V. thapsus, but the stamen are far too prominent. Circeus 14:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

None of these are V. thapsus as I understand the plant from its introduced range in North America, but neither do they appear to be the other two introductions in California, V. blattaria or V. virgatum.--Curtis Clark 05:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus aa.jpg does not look like verbascum thapsu. commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus plant1.jpg is some wild visitor in our garden. By incident, I was wondering about its identification last night. An error is very well possible, its from the first year when I idnetified plants. I'll try to have a second look somewhere next week. Perhaps someone can ask Bogdan about his image? TeunSpaans 05:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus plant1.jpg, I had a closeup of its flower, one of the sysops on commons was kind enough to restore it. Its commons:Image:Verbascum thapsus bloem.jpg. TeunSpaans 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a beautiful image (alas, definitely not V. thapsus). I'm not so sure anymore that it's not V. thapsus. Why did you have it deleted? Circeus 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It had been deleted because I had forgotten to add the license. My fault ;-) TeunSpaans 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I suspect that Image:Verbascum thapsus aa.jpg might be Verbascum nigra. TeunSpaans 06:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be surprised in the slightest. Compare: Circeus 23:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• 
  V. nigrum
• 
  V. thapsus (??)

Alternation of generations

The article starts with

Alternation of generations is a reproductive cycle of certain vascular plants, fungi, and protists.

is it certain vascular plants or most vascular plants or all vascular plants ? The topic appears to have been discussed in the talk page, but it seems to have been gone astray with arguments over what constitute a generation. Would be more comfortable to see cited definitions at the introduction since I have been told that all plants show AoG, but I am not confident enough of my botany to do anything more about this... Hope someone can make the introduction more unquestionable with citations. thanks Shyamal 01:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll look the article over. I'm a bit limited on time, but you've made valid points. Thanks for the catch. KP Botany 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)