Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

WikiProject Plants

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

World Flora Online

The December update has been made on WFO Plant List and I've noticed that the updates haven't appeared in main WFO site. I was comparing Dicranella as treated by Bryonames and WFO. Dicranella rufipes (Müll. Hal.) Kindb. is (still?) recognised as a species by WFO, but no longer by Bryonames or, with the December update, by WFO List which have it as a synonym of Aongstroemia campylophylla (Taylor) Müll.Hal..

I'm a little surprised by this as I'd have expected them to use the same database. While I assume this is temporary, I thought I'd mention it here so people are aware there may be different treatments on the two sites. The Wikidata ID item was changed to link to WFO List (by one of the WFO list team) and now the links in the {{taxonbar}} now go there rather than the more general site, which also has distributions and other biological information. The two sites have links to each other but the link from WFO Plant List to WFO is not obvious. I wonder if the taxonbar should be modified to show both links.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

A problem with using WFO List in the taxonbar is that it redirects to the accepted name. So for the family example in the next section, Viburnaceae and Adoxaceae, both WFO links go the WFO List page for Viburnaceae.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Viburnaceae vs. Adoxaceae

I see that PoWO, WFO, APweb, etc. now treat Adoxaceae as a synonym of Viburnaceae rather than vice versa. IPNI says that both are "nom. cons." Searching the appendices of the current ICNafp doesn't produce a new recommendation that I can find. Anyone know what is going on? Do we need to update our articles? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

There was a proposal to conserve Adoxaceae against Viburnaceae ([1]). It failed (vote reported here). The Smithsonian has a site that used to be called "Proposals and Disposals" (and that's still what I search for to get there). It's here; be sure to set the radio button at the bottom to "Proposals/Requests" and then search for Adoxaceae to get a record with various articles in Taxon about this proposal (there are 3 more besides the two I've linked above; I haven't looked at them, but I doubt there is much more relevant detail). Plantdrew (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'd found those proposals, but was puzzled as to why the majority of taxonomic databases aren't following the rejection, although some do (follow the links in the taxonbar at Adoxaceae). Tropicos says "General Committee failed to reach decision on first try", so I wondered if there had been a more recent second try, but it appears not. So it seems that regardless of PoWO, WFO, APweb, GRIN, APC, etc. we should continue to use Adoxaceae, as do GBIF, ITIS, and NCBI. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I struggle to understand these debates, but my interpretations is that POWO, WFO and APWeb using Viburnaceae is following the results of the proposals. In Proposal 1800, Viburnaceae was conserved over Tinaceae (presumably that passed). Then Proposal 1801 considered conserving Adoxaceae over Viburnaceae, which failed to pass, so Viburnaceae becomes the favoured name. In the event of 1801 failing, Proposal 1802 would consider using Sambucaceae over both, but it seems 1801 hasn't failed yet, it just didn't pass on the first try.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The quote from TROPICOS refers to what happened before the General committee voted to reject the conservation as set out in the 2016 report, so that vote was the second try, that's why it says in TROPICOS "From Proposals/Requests (accessed 5 Mar 2021):...." Weepingraf (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I tend to think that PoWO, WFO, APweb, etc., have already done this analysis, and we should follow what they have done and change to Viburnaceae. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The APG IV (2016) update had this to say:

"Recently the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants (NCVP) has approved the conservation of Viburnaceae (Applequist, 2013), thus proposing it be the correct name for Adoxaceae sensu APG. This outcome was contrary to the intention of the original proposal (Reveal, 2008), which aimed to maintain nomenclatural stability. We therefore do not accept this decision of the NCVP in the hope that the General Committee will not approve it in its report to the next botanical congress (cf. Applequist, 2013)."

I'd guess APG V will use Viburnaceae and that PoWO, WFO and APweb are party to that decision.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not meant to be sarcastic, but if we just do nothing fo a while, it will probably be settled back to Adoxaceae before we get to it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There have already been 2 botanical congresses since 2013, so clearly this was approved, otherwise it would not be in the appendices. Weepingraf (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Geographic tree category discussion

I recently noticed the Category:Trees of the Eastern United States that was missed in the previous merger of tree categories in November 2023. I'm posting here to get the views of other plant editors. The discussion is at here. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Trees of Alberta seems to have also survived. (Still blue linked on the original discussion.) Lavateraguy (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to have to try again next year on this since it closed. I missed a lot of categories as well, so in a way just as well. I'll make a more complete list and actually be organized about letting the plant project know next time.

🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of "Category:Flora" into "Category:Plants"

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Flora for a proposal to merge Category:Flora into Category:Plants. (I'm strongly opposed.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Hydnocarpus pentandrus and Hydnocarpus wightianus

A discussion to merge these two articles has reached an impasse since we aren't sure what to do here. A solution from someone knowledgeable will be appreciated. Thanks. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Translating Latin, and using JSTOR:Global Plants description

Good day everyone!

In an article (Bidens acuticaulis) that I am drafting, one of the sources (v.59 (1915) - Botanical gazette - Biodiversity Heritage Library) I am considering using as a reference has the species description entirely in Latin. For people who don't know any Latin, can the text from an online translator (such as Google Translate) be used? If not, is there a way for someone (who doesn't know Latin) to reliably translate botanical Latin into English?

And on an unrelated note, can the species descriptions at JSTOR:Global Plants be cited as a reliable source in a Wikipedia Article? Cayuga3 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Modern Latin exists in a number of forms, of which Botanical Latin is one. A pitfall to watch out for is words that have a specialised meaning in Botanical Latin; Google Translate might use the more widespread sense instead, though nowadays it tends to pick the right one for the context. It may also be spooked by OCR errors in the text. In this instance Google Translate does a pretty good job - probably better than I could do with the assistance of no more than a dictionary. remote is botanical jargon, but its meaning in this passage is unclear, and I'd want to look at other descriptions to clarify. I'd use bracts or phyllaries rather than scales; I was unclear what paleae denotes in this context - spikelet indicates that they are receptacular bracts (which is what I suspected, and which I've seen called scales in other descriptions of composites). bi-aristed would normally be biaristose, but "with two awns" would be clearer. diaphanous would normally be scarious or membranous (and there's not enough context to tell which was intended). petiole attached 1-4 cm. long looks wrong, especially as the petiole length is given later; I guess that this should be "1-4cm long including petiole". (This review should give you some idea of the quality of the translation).

If you haven't already looked at WP:COPYVIO (not relevant in this instance) and WP:PLAGIARISM you should probably do so - I believe that tight translations fall within the scope of plagiarism. That plant descriptions are rather stereotyped is a problem, as it makes it hard to rewrite in your own words. Outside Wikipedia I've written descriptions from photographs/drawings/specimens and then supplemented that with other descriptions, but within Wikipedia that is contrary to WP:NOR.

In this instance, POWO has English language descriptions from FTEA. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Google Translate generally does okay with Latin (I often use it with minimal issues), but as Lavateraguy says, botanical Latin is a bit special and sometimes confuses the translator. I would suggest using Google Translate while checking over the original text with a botanical Latin glossary - the Missouri Botanic Garden has one here, though it is not quite finished, so you may have to resort to googling some words. Honestly, botanical Latin is fairly intuitive and you will start to develop an understanding as you read more of it. If there's any particular words or phrases you're unsure about, feel free to ask about it here! And, as Lavateraguy says, try to avoid just directly translating the Latin description - I recommend writing descriptions in full sentences (eg. "The petals measure approximately 5mm by 5mm and are white with pink dots" as opposed to "petals white with pink dots, ca. 5mm x 5mm") at the very least.

When it comes to your question about JSTOR, yes, I would say JSTOR entries are generally reliable, but check the original source to be sure. I would suggest citing the original text that JSTOR draws from and linking to the JSTOR entry in your citation with the |url and |via parameters in Template:Cite book or Template:Cite journal. Aggregators like JSTOR are extremely useful, but the original authors of the text should be credited - the JSTOR citations can be a little odd, so you may need to do a little research to get all the information for a citation. For example, this entry draws from "Flora of Tropical East Africa, Part Part 3, page 547, (2005) Author: H. Beentje, C. Jeffrey & D.J.N. Hind", which you could cite as:

• Beentje, H.; Jeffrey, C.; Hind, D.J.N. (2005). Compositae (Part 3). Flora of Tropical East Africa. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. p. 547. ISBN 9781842461068 – via JSTOR.

Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Need help with banana tree

Template:Did you know nominations/Madagascar banana Chidgk1 (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Camphora officinarum#Requested move 27 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Camphora officinarum#Requested move 27 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Change to Infraspeciesbox template

I'm not sure we should have the article Ulmus × hollandica var. insularum – the variety is not accepted by PoWO, and the material could easily be moved to Ulmus × hollandica. However, given that it does exist, and previously had a manual taxobox because {{Infraspeciesbox}} wouldn't handle nothospecies, I have updated the template so that it now works for such cases. All the testcases at Template:Infraspeciesbox/testcases seem ok, but please revert my change if any problems turn up elsewhere. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

As I guessed this taxon is recognised by Sell & Murrell, as Ulmus insularum.

User Ptelea wrote a lot of pages on Ulmus species, varieties and cultivars. My position is that the cultivars, etc., wouldn't normally be considered notable, but since the work has been done it might as well be kept. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

IPNI has an entry for Ulmus insularum with Ulmus × hollandica var. insularum as the basionym, so this could be added to the article. PoWO treats it as a nothospecies, with Ulmus × insularum as a synonym of Ulmus × hollandica. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately for many of the pages written by Ptelea, they are all directly in the line of stubby "catalogue" articles that were discussed as NOT fulfilling notability criteria in the WP:NSPECIES promotion last fall. They are, by majority, based on seed catalogue entries and some herbarium collection numbers with no outside indications as to notability. I feel they should be assessed and up-merged or otherwise dealt with if they lack the secondary sourcing to meet notability.--Kevmin § 17:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

In general, I agree, particularly those on less well known cultivars, although I now think that Ulmus × hollandica var. insularum is somewhat more notable than I first thought. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Another AI LLM site to watch out for

I was checking the new article for Acanthus eminens and it cited Selina Wamucii, along with propagate.one. Propagate.one looks to be the same sort of LLM generated garbage as Selina Wamucii. I haven't found anything there yet that I recognize as being flat out wrong, but they are offering advice on propagating plants that nobody is actually propagating, and I would expect a human writing about Cnidoscolus albomaculatus would warn about stinging hairs. Plantdrew (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

They describe propagation of Malva x clementii (shrubby lavatera) by seed, and describe the fruits as "small round balls". The actual fruits are flattened schizocarps. The plants (with the exception of 'Bredon Springs') produce very little seed (1 seed per 10 fruits might be generous), and the seed is not always viable. They are sufficiently fertile that backcrosses with Malva thuringiaca exist (which are also Malva x clementii), and these strike me as not being easy to propagate by cuttings (unlike the F1 hybrids, which are quite easy).

However I suspect that the site is generated programmatically, but not using an LLM. The text seems rather stereotyped and generic. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Subsequently the article has been edited to add text from FTEA (2008) and FTA (1900). It's cited and quoted, so not plagiarism, but I'd expect that the FTEA text is a copyright violation. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)