Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

WikiProject Plants

 Main page Talk Taxon template Botanist template Resources Events Requests New articles Index 

Strange entry in POWO, etc.

[edit]

Yucca luminosa is listed as accepted in both POWO and WFO, but with the authority listed as "ined.". Which is not in IPNI. And there is no listing for where it was first published, either. Does anyone know what is up with this? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin ineditus means unpublished, but the name is suppressed according to the IPNI, which just makes it more confusing.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.mobot.org/mobot/latindict/keyDetail.aspx?keyWord=ined. E Wusk (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What this usually means is that it's accepted as a distinct species, but does not have a name that is acceptable under the ICNafp. Someone will eventually publish one. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that "ined." names are necessarily accepted as distinct species. "Unplaced" names are.
POWO has a record for Yucca rigida (Engelm.) Trel. (1902) and Yucca × rigida Deleuil ex André (1883), with the Trel. name marked as "nom. illeg."
Tropicos records are Yucca rigida (Engelm.) Trel. and Yucca × rigida André, with the Andre name marked as "nom illeg.".
Tropicos and POWO both have records for Yucca rupicola var. rigida Engelm. (1873): POWO Tropicos.
I've become much less confident of my understanding of the code after dealing with Buchanania lanzan/cochinchinensis a couple months ago. Based on what I had thought previously I would have said that Andre's rigida species would make Englem.'s var. rigida require a new name if it was elevated to species rank after Andre's publication (with luminosa being the new name). But now I'm not sure that I understand things correctly. Plantdrew (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The name was only recently added to IPNI https://ipni.org/n/77359997-1
so they may not yet have edited it. Weepingraf (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is very useful to see. Now I have a thread to pull on looking to understand what happened with this species. Thanks. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've understood "ined." and "comb ined." to mean that the name has never been formally published (sensu Art. 29-30) although it may have been casually or provisionally used. (As distinguished from a validly published but illegitimate name.) I found a Google Book snippet that included "Yucca luminosa Govaerts (2014) (nom. inval., ICN Art. 29.1)", so my theory is that the former Yucca rupicola var. rigida needed a replacement name on being raised to species level (Y. rigida being preoccupied by Andre's name), Rafaël promulgated Yucca luminosa as a replacement but in some form (online?) that did not constitute a valid publication, and then things just hung fire until van der Meer, who appears to be engaged in some sort of general program of nomenclatural repair, validly published it in his pocket journal, "Cactologia Phantastica". Choess (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IPNI record for Yucca luminosa M.H.J.van der Meer says "epublished" which would suggest that the name hasn't been validly published under the code. Or does the zenodo link satisfy the code. Either way, why does ipni.org:names:77177288-1 (linked from the WFO PLant List record for Yucca luminosa ined.) say "This name 77177288-1 is suppressed" and not that the name is invalid/illegal in some way? Or is this just an indication they haven't caught up with van der Meer's publication.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This chapter on Yucca AGAVACEAE has the following, which confirms your theory:
  • Y. rigida (Engelmann) Trelease (Annual Rep. Missouri Bot. Gard. 13: 65, tt. 35, 36: fig. 1, 84: fig. 1, 1902). Nom. illeg., ICN Art. 53.1. Type: Mexico, Durango (Gregg 477 [MO 148683]).—Lit: Matuda & Piña Luján (1980: 122–125, with ills.); Hochstätter (2004a: 47–49, ills. pp. 142, 144–146); Flores-Hernández & al. (2011: with ills.). Distr: Mexico (C & SE Chihuahua, SW Coahuila, E Durango); stony ravines and slopes in desert scrub, 1100–1600 m; flowers March to May. I: Earle (1964); Piña Luján (1980: 281); Starr (2000: 13); Irish & Irish (2000: t. 91); Johnson (2000: 19); Hochstätter (2003a: 20–22);Guillot Ortiz & Meer (2008: 110). – Fig. 6.
≡ Yucca rupicola var. rigida Engelmann (1873); incl. Yucca luminosa Govaerts (2014) (nom. inval., ICN Art. 29.1). ...
  • The established name Y. rigida (Engelmann) Trelease is unfortunately a later homonym of Y. ×rigida Deleuil ex André 1883, and therefore illegitimate. Govaerts (2014+) used the replacement name Y. luminosa, but the name was not formally published and is therefore invalid. In order to stabilize current use, a proposal to conserve Trelease’s name is in progress.
Govaerts (2014) is WCSP.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the IPNI Govaerts record was suppressed to eliminate confusion after van der Meer published a legitimate form of the name (which could be credited as Govaerts ex. van der Meer if one wished too). Generally speaking I don't think they like having names that have not been accepted in effectively published literature. I note that another ined. name cited in van der Meer from POWO (Sedum pentandrum, which would also be a homonym) has been similarly suppressed. You could contact them to ask if that's what's going on. In my experience, they are generally fairly responsive to queries. Circéus (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vernonioideae

[edit]

I noticed while stub sorting that our taxonomy in articles varies, sometimes placing Vernoniae in Vernonioideae and sometimes in Cichorioideae. Keeley et al. 2021 (https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajb2.1614) note that Harold E. Robinson seems to have objected to the recognition of Vernonioideae, but compositae.org recognizes it, encompassing all tribes formerly in Cichorioideae except Cichorieae. Should we be updating taxoboxes to use Vernonioideae? Choess (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. WFO use compositae.org as their TEN for Asteraceae and POWO don't use subfamily/tribe classifications. The Mandel et al (2019) phylogeny makes the reason why clear (see here).  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

POWO not working

[edit]

Pbritti, it's not just you. I was just trying to access POWO and hit the error message "Service Unavailable". Has anyone been able to access POWO recently? PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 04:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not working for me also. Dracophyllum 05:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, it's not working for me either. Alexeyevitch(talk) 05:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that over the weekend and it's still unavailable. I assume that fixing problems at the weekend is more difficult so we should look later today. The main Kew Gardens site is live, but I couldn't find any announcement of a planned downtime or changes.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Working OK now - MPF (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philodendron Garden Party

[edit]

You're invited to the Philodendron Garden Party!, which seeks to create and improve Wikipedia's coverage of the genus Philodendron from April 15 to May 31. Feel free to share ideas and results!

Happy editing and happy gardening! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What an excellent idea! I love the thought of very focused and short "garden parties" to promote collaboration! Fritzmann (message me) 23:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like Thanks! I'm glad to see there's interest and I hope editors enjoy collaborating. If this one's successful, perhaps we can have another garden party for another genus. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help illustrate climate change information on Wikipedia and win a signed copy of The Climate Book by Greta Thunberg

[edit]

Dear all

I’m very happy to let you know we are running a competition at Wikiproject Climate Change to encourage people to help improve visual information about climate change including the impact of deforestation, biodiversity loss etc. The competition is open until the 17th of May for all language versions of Wikipedia. The top three point scorers will each win a signed copy of The Climate Book by Greta Thunberg.

Please let me know if you have any questions

Thanks :)

John Cummings (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taraxacum (dandelion) species names do not follow WP:COMMONNAME

[edit]

Many species of dandelion's articles are named their scientific name, not their common name. As per COMMONNAME, they should be named their common name. Is a mass renaming appropriate for these articles? Here are some examples:

Taraxacum aphrogenes - Paphos dandelion

Taraxacum arcticum - arctic dandelion

Taraxacum californicum - California dandelion

Taraxacum officinale - common dandelion

Taraxacum carneocoloratum - pink dandelion

Taraxacum desertorum - desert dandelion

Taraxacum erythrospermum - red-seeded dandelion

Taraxacum holmboei - Troödos dandelion

etc.

MallardTV Talk to me! 13:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general, no; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) for reasons why we usually use the scientific name, and the few exceptions for plants of major commercial importance (which none of these are!) - MPF (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks! MallardTV Talk to me! 12:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Species name move - thoughts?

[edit]

I attempted to move the page Actinidia deliciosa to Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa as per the currently accepted name used by POWO, Flora of China (2007) and even some recent sources by one of the authors who previously raised the taxon to species level, but the move was unsuccessful. The issue was apparently that the article mentioned subspecies which have since been synonymised with the taxon, and that the article should cover all varieties. I don't quite understand the objection - does anyone have any thoughts on what could be changed in the article to make a move more likely to be successful, or why Actinidia deliciosa would be a more appropriate name? --Prosperosity (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to change "General Sherman (tree)" to "General Sherman Tree"

[edit]

Please feel free to join in the discussion here. — hike395 (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I've noticed a sudden influx of spam accounts with the following characteristics:

  • Brand new users with no user page.
  • Usernames are almost always in the format of a single-word name followed by a 2-4 digit number (often 254).
  • They edit articles for common plant species to add inappropriate (but correctly-formatted) citations to the site plantaddicts.com.
  • Misleading edit summaries along the lines of "made small spelling and grammar changes in line with policy".
  • Almost always only a single edit per account.
  • No response to attempts to engage via talk pages.

I noticed several in my watched pages, and then I found a bunch more with LinkSearch. I've reverted and warned all those I found (there are a couple of remaining links which appear to have been added in good faith before this spam attack - I haven't checked whether they are actually appropriate to keep). There might be more which were reverted by others without being identified as part of this group. But here is a list of all the accounts I've found so far for reference:

Bots spamming plant articles in April 2025

Averixus (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can add these where the links were reverted:
 —  Jts1882 | talk  09:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's still going on, e.g. here. I think it's necessary to carry out a regular search for "plantaddicts.com". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The is a spam black list: MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Theere is a template to gather more information:
I've added a request at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#plantaddicts.com.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the use in the Hydrangea article was added in November 2017. It might be that the spam additions are the problem rather than the website content itself.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation status

[edit]

Hi! I'm working on an article for Aquilegia paui. While a conservation assessment was published in Oryx in 2011 (and subsequently the subject of praise by Stephen Hopper), that assessment only recommended that the IUCN list the species as endangered. The IUCN has never formally assessed the species. Another, previous assessment tentatively classified the species as critically endangered. Would it be appropriate to use the Speciesbox parameter for an endangered species? ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just had this come up with an edit I made where I had added a DD status that was in the paper where the species was described (and the word "recommended" was also used regarding the status). In that case no mention was made of the 5 IUCN criteria (A-E) which I understand should be mentioned for a formal DD designation, so I undid my edit there. The 2011 asssessment for Aquilegia paui does mention a criterion.
I'm not sure what it makes to make an IUCN status official. Inclusion the Red List database? Not having a status assessment that otherwise meets the requirements (whatever those may be) disclaimed as only being "recommended"? Plantdrew (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'm inclined to include it for Aquilegia paui. It's a frustrating circumstance, but I suppose such things are not objective. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue the difference between a paper assessing a species according to the IUCN criteria and an "official" Red List status is the review process that assessments go through prior to being added to the Red List. I think it's fair to differentiate between these preliminary assessments based on IUCN criteria and assessments actually recognised by the IUCN and published in the Red List. In these cases (or cases in which a more recent assessment has been published in the literature but not yet published in the Red List yet, as with Euryops walterorum), I've opted to not include a status in the speciesbox but instead mention it in the body of the article, along the lines of "A preliminary assessment assessed [species] as [status] according to IUCN criteria, based on [criteria + reasoning]". Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think only official assessments by various bodies should go in the taxobox. One can also argue this in Wikipedia source terms. An assessment in a journal article is a primary source for the conservation status, while assessments by bodies like the IUCN are reviews of the data and act as secondary sources. The unofficial statuses can be added in the text where it can be explained properly with caveats.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants&oldid=1287956837"