Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

WikiProject Plants

Main pageTalkTaxon templateBotanist templateResourcesRequestsNew articlesIndex

Draft:Draba hyperborea

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I do also need to mention, when I was writing this article I was on vacation.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Policy discussions relating to species notability

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)

Unplaced Names

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 ( 18 ). 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)

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)

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)

Proposed deletion of Horticultural botany

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)

Butia campicola

What happened here?

• POWO has Butia campicola (Barb.Rodr.) Noblick. First published in Palms 48: 42 (2004)
• WFO has Butia campicola (Barb.Rodr.) Noblick. This species name was first published in Palms 48: 42 (2004)
• The taxobox has Butia campicola (Barb.Rodr.) Noblick, 2004

Which seems straightforward enough. However a 1996 IUCN publication has:

• Butia campicola (Barb.Rodr.) Noblick (=Syagrus c.)

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)

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)

Adeia (plant)

I am not sure what the English Wikipedia usually does when POWO and WFO disagree – in this case, POWO accepts the new genus Adeia, whose article I linked in the section title, but WFO does not. We therefore still keep the type species, Hazardia whitneyi, at the old name. This is clearly unsatisfactory, but I am not sure in which direction to resolve it. Felix QW (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Felix QW:, the WFO pages I've looked at accept Adeia. Do you have a link to a page where it isn't accepted? WFO does treat both A. whitneyi and H. whitneyi as accepted, which is wrong (and there are two different WFO records for Haplopappus whitneyi var. whitneyi).

We haven't really had any discussion about what to do when POWO and WFO disagree. They basically never disagree, although that may be changing. Plantdrew (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I must have seen that H. Whitneyi was accepted and then deduced that they must have not accepted the genus Adeia. In that case, we should probably simply move the species page to the new name, adapt it to the fact that the non-eponymous variety is now accepted as a separate species and move on. Felix QW (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is the way to go. Plantdrew (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick replies! I think I've adjusted everything now. Felix QW (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Neopanax colensoi and Draft:Pseudopanax colensoi

Will someone please look at this article and this draft and verify which is the accepted name for this genus and species? It appears that Neopanax is correct, but will someone please check? The draft, although probably misnamed, has more information than the article, so that the article should be expanded with information from the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, I had a quick glance at POWO, and it lists Neopanax colensoi as an accepted name. If the draft creator does not respond or merge the information within a week I will copy the information over. Sound reasonable? Once that is done the draft could make a perfectly reasonable redirect to preserve the history. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like Pseudopanax colensoi might be the newer name. POWO has Neopanax colensoi (Hook.f.) Allan as the accepted name (after Allan ((1961). Fl. New Zealand 1: 434) and Pseudopanax colensoi (Hook.f.) K.Koch as the synonym (after Frodin, D.G. & Govaerts, R. (2003 publ. 2004). World Checklist and Bibliography of Araliaceae: 1-444). The IUCN recognises Pseudopanax colensoi (formerly as Neopanax colensoi) and gives "(Hook.f.) Philipson" as the authority in the taxonomy section, citing the New Zealand Plant Conservation Network (2023) as the taxonomic source, which suggests they have changed the taxonomy since the 2018 assessment. The citation still uses Neopanax colensoi. I can't immediately find the date of Philipson's revision. As POWO synonymises Pseudopanax colensoi (Hook.f.) K.Koch rather than Pseudopanax colensoi (Hook.f.) Philipson, could this be a case where POWO should be asked for clarification?  —  Jts1882 | talk  06:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This 2009 article still seems to reflect the situation: Neopanax had long been synonymised, and has then been resurrected by two (sets of) authors in the early 2000's. Since then, other authors have resynonymised it. It is probably one of the cases where it is just a judgement call, since the genera seem to be monophyletic both separately and together, and it could well be that there is not yet clear consensus among the researchers working in this group. POWO presumably followed the authors of the early 2000s and now prefers to err on the side of their status quo until clearer consensus has emerged. Felix QW (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

IPNI has a record for Pseudopanax colensoi K.Koch and one for Pseudopanax colensoi (Hook.f.) Philipson, with the K.Koch one listed as nom. inval. Since POWO does accept Neopanax, it might be the case that they should recognize Neopanax colensoi, but they don't have a record for the Philipson name. Plantdrew (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

As stated above IPNI says the Koch name is a nom. inval. Biodiversity Heritage Library doesn't have the publication but a German university website does. The combination in Pseudopanax was validated by Philipson in 1965. I have yet to decode the German to attempt to ascertain why Koch's publication is considered a nom. inval.

NZ Flora uses Pseudopanax.

Thanks for digging up the Koch publication. I checked BHL and didn't search further when BHL didn't have it. The relevant bit (translated by Google) is "The 3 New Zealand Panax species described by the younger Hooker: lineare, Edgerleyi and Colensoi are doubtfully found here and differ in a smaller number of non-fused styles. This also applies to P. Gunnii Hook. fil. from Van Diemen's Land."

"found here" in context is the genus Pseudopanax. Doubtful assignments aren't valid publications of a new combination as I understand it. However, IPNI/POWO have records for Pseudopanax linearis and Pseudopanax edgerleyi with authorship attributed to Koch, and no notes about them being invalid.

Philipson does claim to be publishing a new combination for Pseudopanax gunnii. IPNI has three records for P. gunnii, with authorship given as "(Hook.f.) K.Koch", "K.Koch" and "(Hook.f.) Philipson". The only one with a corresponding POWO record is the "K.Koch" one, but POWO gives the authorship for that as "(Hook.f.) K.Koch"

In short, IPNI/POWO are inconsistent in handling Koch's doubtful Pseudopanax species and are erroneous in doing so. Plantdrew (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That seems a valid reason for the Koch combination is invalid. (I was wondering whether even the laxer requirements of the time were met, but failing to state the species belongs to the genus would trump that.) Will you be dropping a note to IPNI about the other combinations? Lavateraguy (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on contacting IPNI. Would you like to? I suppose I could, but in the past I've relied on Peter coxhead to alert Kew to problems we've found in their databases. Plantdrew (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. Do you want to see a copy? Lavateraguy (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

On the original question, while Pseudopanax and Neopanax are both monophyletic, they may be jointly paraphyletic with respect to Plerandra (Melanesian Schleferra clade - Schleffera pro parte and assorted previous segregate genera) and Meryta. I haven't managed to find a newer paper resolving this question. I think we should follow POWO and use the name Neopanax colensoi. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like there are two philosophical approaches. If Neopanax is recognised both are monophyletic, regardless of the exact relationships between them and those other genera. Perrie & Shepherd (2009) take the view that there isn't unequivoval evidence that Pseudopanax is monophyletic or that it is not monophyletic, so leave the status quo. Given we generally follow POWO for page titles and taxoboxes that seems appropriate.

The new draft article is much more extensive. Perhaps Abbeyc5748 should add the new material to the Neopanax colensoi article. Then it just needs a short taxonomy section describing the two views.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of if stays at Neopanax or gets moved I hope they do add the information to the article because I would like to see them get credit for the editing. It is a small thing, but they did a good job on their draft. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Draft:Abram Paschal Garber

The draft I started on this American plant collector was rejected if anyone can help. Thanks! FloridaArmy (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This article[1] has a bibliography listing 45 texts that mention Garber which may be of use to you, if you can track them down. I'm still not especially confident you will be able to establish notability (it can be quite difficult with scientists, given that despite their achievements they are rarely mentioned in the media) but I hope that bibliography is helpful.

On a related note, if you're not able to get him an independent article, I think it would be a good idea to expand a bit upon him in the articles on taxa named in his honour - Garberia, Euphorbia garberi, and Habenaria floribunda are the ones I could find, and they either don't mention him or only mention him very briefly. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Upcoming International Botanical Congress vote on "offensive" binomial names

This has been rolling along for a while, but the vote happens this week (see the recent Nature story) there are two main proposals that are being voted on:

• 1. Replacing "caffra"-related names (which are etymologically related to an ethnic slur) to derivatives of "afr" (affects around 218 species)
• 2. A proposal to "create a committee to reconsider offensive and culturally inappropriate names."

I've created a thread to discuss the issue at WT:TOL. Please participate there if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

As I've noted at the TOL discussion, the first proposal has passed [2], so the relevant Wikipedia articles will need to be changed at some point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Only if secondary sources follow this decision.  —  Jts1882 | talk  20:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I'll check back periodically on POWO and WFO to see if they end up following this. Reading the article it will come into effect in 2026, so there will be some time before this is implemented. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

These probably can be mentioned on the relevant articles even though the articles won’t be moved yet. Even if the name changes aren’t accepted by the wider community, it still is relevant information. awkwafaba (📥) 03:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that the 2026 date applies to newly published names being subject to veto by a sensitivity committee. There is scope for interpretation in Nature's reporting, but I expect that the "caffra"-related changes come into force on publication of the new code (i.e. at the end of the conference). I expect that IPNI and POWO will make the changes in short order. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

People are already starting to make changes to articles as a result of the vote, see Dovyalis affra for example. I am really concerned that this is jumping the gun, so I think we need further discussion to see if there is consensus for changing the names at this time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Subdivisions

Working on Draft:Trifolium parryi, I found that both WFO and POWO have one variety and two subspecies listed as valid. I've gone back and forth with myself about how to handle the taxo box in this case. My first thought was just to call them "Subdivisions". My second thought was to just list the two subspecies and mention the variety in the text under Taxonomy. Opinions? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

15 articles with {{Speciesbox}} use "Subspecies and varieties" for |subdivision_ranks=, 4 use "Infraspecific taxa" and 2 use "Subdivisions". There are many articles with {{Automatic taxobox}} that list more than one rank. I assume the choice of the plural subdivision_ranks for the parameter name means that it was intended to cover cases where subdivisions at different ranks might be listed. Plantdrew (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

RetractionBot

I posted this story from the Signpost last month. Things have evolved a bit and now Retraction bot handles {{Erratum}}, {{Expression of concern}}, and {{Retracted}}. These populate the following categories:

• Category:Articles citing retracted publications (292)

1. Herbal medicine
2. Iris florentina
3. Medical ethnobotany of India
4. Medicinal plants
5. Parthenocissus tricuspidata

• Category:Articles citing publications with expressions of concern (60)

1. No plant-related articles

• Category:Articles citing publications with errata (65)

1. No plant-related articles

If the citation is no longer reliable, then the article needs to be updated, which could be as minor as the removal/replacement of the citation with a reliable one, to rewriting an entire section that was based on flawed premises. If the citation to a retracted paper was intentional, like in the context of a controversy noting that a paper was later retracted, you can replace {{retraction|...}} with {{retraction|...|intentional=yes}}/{{expression of concern|...}} with {{expression of concern|...|intentional=yes}}/{{Erratum|...}} with {{Erratum|...|checked=yes}}.

I put the list of articles within the scope of WP:PLANTS in sub-bullets. Feel free to remove/strike through those you've dealt with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

In the Iris florentina case, the paper was retracted for duplication, so the retraction doesn't per se cast doubt on the results. This paper is a secondary source, citing another paper. That other paper doesn't mention Iris florentina; it sems that the wrong paper by a group of authors was cited, as a search for the compound name finds an earlier paper which does describe the identification of the relevant compound from Iris florentina. I've replaced the retracted paper by the correct primary source. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

At herbal medicine I've removed 2 of 5 citations to the retracted paper. The other 3 instances need replacement citations.

The source code for the retracted citation contains a reference to retractionwatch.com, but this doesn't show up in the HTTP of the references. Is this an issue with the bot/template? Lavateraguy (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Medicinal plants references the same study. I've removed the sentence.

In these two instances both the study and a NY Times article based on the study were cited. I've removed the citation to the NY Times as well, but ideally we'd want to track down and remove any citations to press reports based on this (and other) retracted papers. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

In Parthenocissus tricuspidata the paper was retracted for plagiarising a few paragraphs, but these paragraphs don't affect the results of the study that are being cited. Can the the paper still be used as a reliable source? A retraction means it no longer part of the published literature, so I assume it can't.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It's bad form to cite a retracted paper, regardless of the reason why it's retracted, to establish a scientific claim. When it's duplication/failure of attribution, it doesn't make the retracted paper unreliable per se, but you can probably find a better source to support the same fact. Or, even more likely, WP:DUE applies and you don't need to talk about that specific fact. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS doesn't seem to say anything about retracted papers, unless it's on one of the many subpages. If it's not covered anywhere this may be worth an RFC. I've seen comments in various places that retracted papers still get cited in the scientific literature, even after they've been retracted, so an absolute ban in Wikipedia would be stricter than the scientific community. I can imagine that there are instances where we might want to cite retracted papers - they're a reliable source that a claim was made, even if not that the claim was correct. (I thought perhaps that LK-99 might have retracted citations, but it turns out not to.) Lavateraguy (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

An example - He_Jiankui_affair#cite_note-NAT-20190603-131 is a citation to a retracted paper which is intentionally made. It was retracted for error, and is cited as documentation of that error. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You can certainly cite a retracted paper to talk about retracted research. I wouldn't go as far as saying it's verboten, but using a retracted paper (even if it's from a section unaffected by the retraction) to established a fact of some kind is bad form. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)