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 pageTalkTaxon templateBotanist templateResourcesRequestsNew articlesIndex
WikiProject iconPlants Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Need help sorting out Sphaerocoryne lefevrei[edit]

Hello. I'm not a regular editor of botanical articles, and need a bit of help. I recently came across some confusion regarding the plant known as lamduan in Thailand and rumduol/rumdul/romduol in Cambodia. After raising the issue at Talk:Uvaria siamensis#Melodorum fruticosum and a bit more research, here's what I can summarise:

  1. The lamduan/rumduol is a native plant in Thailand and Cambodia.
  2. In Thailand, the plant has mostly been described using the scientific name Melodorum fruticosum.
  3. But M. fruticosum was found to actually be a synonym of what is now Uvaria siamensis, a different species.
  4. The species is now described as Sphaerocoryne lefevrei (Baill.) D.M.Johnson & N.A.Murray, 2021. It's listed as accepted by POWO.
  5. In Cambodia, the same plant has mostly been described under the scientific names Popowia aberrans and Mitrella mesnyi.
  6. Most authorities including POWO list P. aberrans and M. mesnyi (superfluous) as synonyms of S. affinis.
  7. S. lefevrei and S. affinis are similar in appearance, and some authors described them as a single species. But S. lefevrei is a small tree native to Indochina, while S. affinis is a climber native to Malesia.
  8. Since S. affinis doesn't occur in Cambodia, the romduol flower should clearly be described as S. lefevrei.

As for our coverage,

  1. On Wikipedia, redundant articles were created in 2009 at "Melodorum fruticosum" and "Rumdul", the latter of which was moved to "Mitrella mesnyi" in 2010 and "Sphaerocoryne affinis" in 2014.
  2. I have since moved the "Melodorum fruticosum" page to Sphaerocoryne lefevrei, and updated the article to consolidate information on the species there.
  3. I've converted Melodorum fruticosum to a disambiguation page.
  4. I've written a new article at Sphaerocoryne affinis. The previous article has been moved back to Mitrella mesnyi (to keep the histories separate) and converted to a disambiguation page, since the content there was mostly about the Cambodian flower and not this species.

What I need help with:

  1. I have no idea what needs to be done to sort things out on Wikidata.
  2. What can be done to address the fact that there are no sources directly connecting rumduol to the scientific name S. lefevrei? Johnson & Murray do list M. mesnyi as a synonym in their paper, but this isn't reflected by POWO.

--Paul_012 (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC), updates 14:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC), 19:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Plantdrew has helped add the Wikidata item; thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expert needed to review AfC submission of a draft about a plant species[edit]

Kindly determine whether the topic is a correctly named WP:NSPECIES subject, and whether the sources are reliable. There is original research in the draft. When the original research is removed perhaps a valid stub can remain. If the answer to all of these items is approximately "yes", please notify me or move the draft to mainspace. Thank you. —Alalch E. 00:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch E. It is a valid species according to Plants of the World Online. You are correct that there is some original research there, but I think it can be cleaned up. There are even some pictures available on iNaturalist. I've applied for BioOne access so I can look at the paper in the journal Madroño and check information there. No description in Flora of North America right now. I can start doing some edits to fix it if that's helpful. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. That would be immensely helpful. —Alalch E. 01:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E. I've done as much as I can until I get BioOne access. I think it is publish ready now, though obviously it needs a proper description and other work. I'll do that once I can read the description of the species. I'll also poke around BLM and see if there is some information that is not being indexed by search engines. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, wonderful progress. —Alalch E. 02:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The work of Draper & Esque (2021) is cited in a review by Seiler et al (2023) (Wikipedia library), which can be used as an independent secondary source. It provides a four sentence summary including its description as an "endemic species from two small desert spring populations" its placement in "section Ciliares series Pumili" (based on morphological and nuclear data), a comparison of its morphology with its closest relative, H. pumilus, and the threat from "heavy recreational use and invasive plants and animals".  —  Jts1882 | talk  06:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Draba hyperborea[edit]

User CycoMa1 began a draft about a plant species but then decided to move on to other things. It was originally under a generic, placeholder name, so I moved it to Draft:Draba hyperborea to match the content (or rather, the former content, as it has been blanked) and to make it findable, should anyone search for it. The draft was 3.2kb and had seven citations at max extent, and is available for expansion and release, if anyone is interested in developing it. Mathglot (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone else do it instead. I have currently lost interest in it entirely.
I am currently more invested in a different draft at the moment.CycoMa1 (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two species involved here; one from eastern Europe - Draba (Schivereckia) podolica, and one from the North Pacific region (Draba grandis). Historically the name was applied to the North Pacific species, but late in the century it was discovered that this was a misappplication, and the plant described by Linnaeus was the Eastern European one (with some additional complications arising from splitting/lumping issues). POWO apply the name to the Eastern European plant, but the ICBN NCVP have recommended that it be applied to the North Pacific plant with a conserved type. Any article would have to need to resolve the identity of the taxon associated with the name. (There are a total of 5 relevant papers in Taxon.) Lavateraguy (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in view of the uncertainty over the name to be applied pending a decision under the ICNafp, it's may be best to leave it as a draft for now. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the last paper in Taxon (Wilson, 2022) resolved it in favour of the North Pacific taxon, but I wasn't completely confident that I understood how the rules worked. I sent an email to Kew yesterday, and I've received a reply from Rafaël Govaerts agreeing that the name applies to the North Pacific taxon (the change will be included in the next refresh of POWO).
For the papers (Mosyakin, 2015; Applequist, 2017; German, 2017; Applequist, 2019; Wilson, 2022) see here. German, 2017 is paywalled. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so when it appears in PoWO, the draft can be moved to mainspace with a ref to PoWO. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some movement towards an article on Draba hyperborea, but looking at the history the originator started out with the intention of writing an article on Draba podolica. When POWO update there is the alternative of rolling back my edits and moving the article to Draft:Draba podolica. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do also need to mention, when I was writing this article I was on vacation.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is something I really need to stop doing. I have a lot of time today, so I can respond to many comments.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policy discussions relating to species notability[edit]

This WikiProject is likely to be interested in the following discussions: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Species notability and Wikipedia talk:Notability#Biology. C F A 💬 14:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unplaced Names[edit]

I was updating some taxoboxes when I came across Oxanthera brevipes. I checked the taxonomy at POWO and it states "This name is unplaced", which put a kibosh on the speciesbox update for a little. I did some poking and found a few more unplaced names and collected them in Category:Unplaced names ( 17 ). Not sure much can be done for these lost souls other than watching and waiting until they find a new home, but thought I'd bring it to ya'll's attention in case anyone had any better ideas, or just wanted to also keep an eye out/on. awkwafaba (📥) 17:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter coxhead and I have notes on a few more unplaced taxa; I've added them to the category. Peter and I have been avoiding implementing automatic taxoboxes for unplaced names. I suppose we could go ahead and do automatic taxoboxes for the ones that have an accepted genus and note the unplaced status of the species with |classification_status= and some kind of note in the relevant genus article. I am not inclined to create any taxonomy templates for synonymized genera that contain an unplaced species. Some of the unplaced species might best be deleted (I'm thinking of Cupania elegans in particular). Plantdrew (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Cupania elegans I think that the article is incorrect in describing it as a horticultural name. Apart from the sparse description (one could argue that it is a nom. subnudum) it seems to be validly published. Depending on whether undulate leaves are sufficient to distinguish it from other Cupania it might well be a nom. ambiguum. If it is distinguishable then we are left with the question whether it is a horticultural variant or a some species. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Horticultural botany[edit]

Notice

The article Horticultural botany has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The subject does not appear to be notable. Internet searches failed to find significant coverage of horticultural botany in reliable independent sources, and the article itself has never had a single citation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Averixus (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Butia campicola[edit]

What happened here?

Which seems straightforward enough. However a 1996 IUCN publication has:[1] : 59, 113, 115 

  • Butia campicola (Barb.Rodr.) Noblick (=Syagrus c.)
  1. ^ Johnson, Dennis, ed. (1996). Palms - their conservation and sustained utilization. Status survey and conservation action plan. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. ISBN 978-2-8317-0352-7.

Is it merely that the recombination wasn't properly published until 2004?

I came across this trying to find an old IUCN assessment. They don't recognise the species any more but the Wikipedia article says they rated it endangered between 1996 and 1998. If I could find the ID, I could check archive.org, but as they don't recognise the species I can't find the ID. Any ideas?  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a few false starts I found the Noblick publication on ResearchGate. It's a one page publication validating a transfer previously made in "Henderson, A., G. Galeano & R. Bernal. 1995. Field Guide to the Palms of the Americas. Princeton University Press, New Jersey" Lavateraguy (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants&oldid=1232388049"