Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

WikiProject Plants

Main pageTalkTaxon templateBotanist templateResourcesRequestsNew articlesIndex

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)

@Plantdrew @MtBotany @Robert McClenon: I've just had a reply from Kew (delayed by last month's congress). POWO and IPNI have been updated, but the latter may not have yet propagated to the public facing data set. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

References

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 [1], 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)

Erythrina afra and Dovyalis afra are now live at IPNI. POWO has yet to follow suit, but I doubt it will take long. Right now IPNI has just 14 records for this epithet that start with a "c". Plantdrew (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Am I understanding this correctly? The record has been changed as if the name never existed. There is no record of the name to be used as a synonym.  —  Jts1882 | talk  06:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

IPNI has been removing orthographic variants from its database for quite a while. The rule change says the the c-forms are to be treated as orthographic variants. IPNI often gives the original spelling as a nomenclatural note when the spelling has been corrected. They do this for at least Erythrina afra, so to that degree there is a record of the other version. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Now all of the IPNI records have been changed. There is no way to search IPNI for other spellings recorded in nomenclatural notes. I don't think that is very helpful. I'm curious how POWO is going to handle this. Plantdrew (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Is that how we should handle these in Wikidata as well? awkwafaba (📥) 22:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. It depends on what the databases linked on Wikidata do. If some of them end up maintaining records for the "c" spellings and creating new records for the c-less spellings, different Wikidata items will be needed for the different spellings. If other databases follow IPNI in changing the spelling without creating any new records, the Wikidata item should have the taxon name changed. Plantdrew (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking we'd end up with entries for each name, with heavy use of the "Also known as" labels. awkwafaba (📥) 22:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

POWO and GRIN are now using the new spellings. POWO maintained their record IDs, but changed the spelling. GRIN has created new records for the new spellings. Plantdrew (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Progress report on missing genera from PoWO, July 2024

It has been about 1.5 years since I last updated my list of missing genera from PoWO. Article creation, mostly by User:Tom Radulovich, has turned 156 redlinks blue, and there have been 3 redirects, leaving 288 redlinks. But PoWO has been listing some new or resurrected genera; so right now there are 345 redlinked genera. Abductive (reasoning) 09:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for maintaining the list. Am I correct in assuming it does not account for Wikipedia articles that share a name with a plant genus, but are about a different topic? Plantdrew (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a list of the redirects (about 235) and disambigs (about 753, there are 8 that are both redirs and disams), and I have checked them in the past for errors. I will be checking again with the latest info. What I have never done is checked for mistaken redirects in the bluelinks, because there are 14,081 genera accepted by PoWO, and therefore 13,736 bluelinks. Abductive (reasoning) 18:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't even thinking about "mistaken redirects in the bluelinks" although now that you mention it, that's another class of missing genera from POWO. "Mistaken redirects in the bluelinks" would be genera that are accepted by POWO, but which Wikipedia treats as a synonyms with a redirect (until it was turned into an article yesterday Senega would be one of those (at least I presume it has been accepted on POWO for some time period of time longer than the last ~36 hours)).

If you're just using link color to check for the existence of genus articles, one of the methods at Wikipedia:Visualizing redirects could help detect "mistaken redirects in the bluelinks".

What I was thinking about is cases like Ambassa, an Indian town that shares a name with the Asteraceae genus Ambassa (plant) that POWO accepts. I suppose it would possible to do some checking of cases like that via Wikidata, but that's not something I know how to do. Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

There are some; I just checked all genera starting with "V" that are accepted by PoWO, 160, and found one, Vandellia, a genus of catfish known for swimming up people's urethras. I posted it to WP:PAR. Abductive (reasoning) 04:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for maintaining this list. I am finding it best to update or create articles on genera by focusing on one family at a time. I first use POWO to update the list of genera in the family article, or on the separate list of genera that have been created for the larger families. I then check all the links – some of the bluelinks turn out to be disambiguation links, or redirects to a genus previously considered a synonym, or to an unrelated article with the same name. Those should get sorted out, including checking 'what links here' to make sure that links are going to the right articles, and/or searching for the genus name across Wikipedia and creating or updating appropriate links. Once I update the genus article I also move the articles on renamed species to their currently accepted names, and search for synonym names across Wikipedia to create appropriate links. It can be useful to list recently-renamed species with Wikipedia articles as 'formerly placed here' in the article for the former genus in case people look for the species there. Existing articles on genera should also be checked against POWO to make sure that the synonyms and lists of species are up to date. I now doubt I'll catch up with the naming of new genera, but can do my best to make sure that the articles and lists that are already here are up-to-date, accurate, referenced, and categorized. Tom Radulovich (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Clarify guidance on exclusion of year from taxobox authority?

Hi all, I just had a discussion with someone last night regarding the inclusion/exclusion of the year of publication of a name from its author citation and wanted to bring it up here. WP:TOL notes on its taxon template page that it is standard to exclude the year of publication as a part of the author citation for plant articles, however, this guidance is not included in the text of this project's taxon template, and has created confusion with at least one user that I know of regarding whether to include the year in the authority field of the taxo/speciesbox of plant articles. Could we update the taxon template to clarify this? Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ethmostigmus Clarification: Do you mean the authority field in the species or taxobox for plants? Because I think the reason that is not in the PLANTS taxon template is that is not settled by the Plants project. There is a bit of a diversity of opinion among regular plant editors regarding if it should or should not be included in the taxobox. Traditionally in botany the year is left off unlike in zoology, but the contrary view is that including the year in the taxobox gives more information to readers of Wikipedia and it is a taxobox not a formal botanical name. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant, apologies for being unclear! The year is excluded in the example plant speciesbox in both the taxon template here and at WP:TOL, but only TOL explains this choice in the text. I would love to see everyone come to consensus on this, but even if this is not a settled matter, I do think it would be worth noting that fact in the text of this project's taxonomy template - "It is standard for botanical citations to exclude the year, however, consensus has not been reached and editors may use discretion when choosing to include/exclude the year of publication from the speciesbox authority field"? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It is best to leave the year out of the infobox and instead use categories such as Category:Plants described in 1753. Abductive (reasoning) 06:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Note - date of description and date of name are not always the same. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Stachybotrys chartarum

There seems to be some controversy going on over at Talk:Stachybotrys chartarum. I'm really not familiar with this topic; however, the article is quite popular and seems to need some work. It seems like this page may be particularly valuable to WP:FRINGE. I just wanted to put this on people's radar, as I know these controversial topics can cause some issues with Wikipedia pages. (Also commented on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine) CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Trinomen in list of synonyms

I've run across a case of a trinomen being used for a plant in a list of synonyms. Malus paradisiaca dasyphylla (Borkh.) Koehne. What would this be described as? Just as an infraspecific? Would it be assumed to be a subspecies? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is the context for the name. If I recall correctly ICNafp has text on the handling of infraspecifics introduced by the old style notation of Greek letters. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

At taxonomic rank: "In a publication prior to 1 January 1890, if only one infraspecific rank is used, it is considered to be that of variety. (Article 37.4) This commonly applies to publications that labelled infraspecific taxa with Greek letters, α, β, γ, ...". Referring to the code, that does not seem to be an accurate paraphrase of the article. Also, the name in question here postdates the 1890 cutoff. I find the application of the code here unclear, but perhaps it would be Malus paradisiaca [unranked] dasyphylla. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I still have no idea how I'll treat it in my list of apple synonyms. It may or may not be notable enough for its own article depending on if I can find enough reliable information about the history of scientific names for the cultivated apple. And it is way too long/big to shove into the apple article even as a collapsed list. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I concur with Lavateraguy on Malus paradisiaca [unranked] dasyphylla. The protologue in question is here; It is a typical nineteenth-century publication which uses Greek letters for labelling intraspecifics without further elaboration. They cannot just be assumed to be varieties since the publication postdates 1890. It is a "name at new rank" whose basionym is M. dasyphylla, so it didn't need a new diagnosis or description. For what it's worth, GBIF seems to treat it as a subspecies. Felix QW (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

At POWO dasyphylla occurs several times in the synonymy of Malus domestica, as a species (the basionym) or as a subspecies, variety, or proles, of several species, including sylvestris, domestica and pumila. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Greek letters in this book are varieties, see p. 6 (where used first)

"Var. a) brevifolia Nuttall (als Art). Krone breit kegelförmig. Aeste auf­

recht oder aufrecht abstehend. Blätter 12—20 mm lang, 2 mm breit, mit sehr

kurzem, gelben Stiel, gelblichgrün. Höhe 10—25 m. — Insel Vancouver bis

Kalifornien.

B. o* Blütenstiel die Schuppen nicht oder wenig überragend.

a) Blätter im Sommer gelblichgrün, im Winter feuerrot (nach Beissner).

Var. ß) minor Michaux. Oft niedrig, dem Boden aufliegend. Aeste auf­" Weepingraf (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

AfD but for Plants?

Wasnt there a list of AfD in WP:Plants, where do I contribute? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you mean article requests - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Article requests - rather than articles for deletion? Lavateraguy (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No not really, im pretty sure there was a page that lists diffrent discussions on articles that you can contribute on, and all of them are plant-related articles. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The closest thing to what you're describing that I can think of is Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organisms - is that what you mean? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You might be thinking of Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Article alerts. Pagliaccious (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, i might take that suggestion... but why am I not getting alerted on replies? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You have to add each article to your watchlist. (I replied to your old comment on Acephala group.)

An alternative is to look at your Contributions page, and look for instances where your edit is not the latest edit. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)