Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Sunflower Flats wildflowers, BLM Elko District Cropped.jpg

WikiProject Plants

Main pageTalkTaxon templateBotanist templateResourcesParticipantsNew articlesIndex
WikiProject Plants (Rated 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.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Replacing a re-direct for Symphoria[]

Symphoria is a synonym for Symphoricarpos, but it is also the name of an orchestra, that I am working on a draft article on. I propose changing the current Symphoria from a redirect to Symphoricarpos to an article about the orchestra with a Wikipedia:Hatnote to Symphoricarpos. I would appreciate your feedback. Newystats (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems ok to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks - I've done it. Newystats (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many Pepinia species need moving[]

As explained at Pitcairnia subgenus Pepinia, the current consensus is that Pepinia is embedded in Pitcairnia. There are many articles that need moving if anyone is looking for something to do. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I took the first (easy) step. I moved the category and added a note. I might get time to articles and have them moved when I'm not just coming off lunch at work. If I undertake to do that, I'd like to do it in one sitting. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All moved now. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a reason you left one species in the Pepinia category? Uporządnicki (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I picked up my courage and went with my feeling that it was just one simple, tiny oversight in a moderately monumental task. And I boldly moved it. Now the Pepinia category is empty. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Uporządnicki: you were right to suppose it was an oversight on my part. Thanks for fixing it! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flora of North America article tagged Notability[]

On 18 October 2022, the Flora of North America article was tagged with Template:Notability by User:Piotrus. I think if it helps us to expand the article, great, but the volumes are definitely notable. Searching for references to the book volumes may not result in a good representation of usage of this source in worldwide literature, as the information is usually cited using the authors of the treatment, followed by the name of the treatment, then "in" the book. So, in essence, it is being cited by chapter, as we have it in our own {{eFloras}} template. For example:

A "What links here" search on Wikipedia for this article produces thousands of results (probably tens of thousands, because it is linked to "FNA" in the {{Taxonbar}} template). The page may require a bit of work, but that doesn't make it not notable. While working within the Symphyotrichum genus alone and reading the professional journals, I will come across "Broullet et al. (2006)" citing one of these treatments. I think the usage and notability is out there. I'm surprised we are questioning it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Eewilson While I agree this work is widely used, the problem is that wide usage =/= notability. You will note I've added a reception section, which weakly indicated notability (there was no such indication before). I am not opposed to the tag being removed, but what is needed is an expansion of the reception section, with more reviews, words of praise, and non-WP:ORish evidence of wide usage. I've also expanded Flora of China (series) with such a section. I am afraid that multiple entries in Category:Florae (publication) have dubious notability shown; some may be rescued, some - well, time will tell. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peter coxhead: @Plantdrew: @Casliber: Can you folks help address this? Flora of Australia (series), Flora of China (series) have also been tagged with {{Notability}}, IMO erroneously, as well as have Flora of Thailand and Handbook of the New Zealand Flora. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I simply cannot believe that anyone could think that this major project isn't notable. Wide usage in scholarly publications (search Google Scholar for example) is an indication of notability; if this isn't considered the case in the English Wikipedia, then the criteria are simply wrong.
If anyone wants to pad out the article (and I think it is padding) then this search throws up some plausible sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All that has to be demonstrated is the impact factor, per Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). Abductive (reasoning) 16:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe it's a multi-volume book series, so wouldn't be able to use the impact factor. Also I'm not so sure if there's a need to add a reception section to help establish that the topic is notable, since notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article according to WP:NEXIST. Also per WP:GNG a topic is notable if it's received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Because Flora of North America is a tertiary source, I would think that its use a reference in a variety of reliable sources such as books (published by reputable publishers) [1] [2], research studies [3], botanical societies etc. would indicate the the subject is notable. Perhaps the notability guidelines for WP:TBK can also be useful? It notes that for academic and technical books possible bases for a finding of notability include, whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, the number of ions of the book, whether one or more translations of the book have been published, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many Cryptanthus species need moving[]

As noted at Cryptanthus § Former species, many species have been transferred to Forzzaea, Hoplocryptanthus and Rokautskyia. I see that Abductive and Premated Chaos did some work on Forzzaea, so these species are ok, but many Hoplocryptanthus and Rokautskyia articles need moving. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WCSP has gone[]

The World Checklist of Selected Plant Families has disappeared; all URLs pointing to it now appear to go to the home page of Plants of the World Online. This means that a huge number of plant references no longer work. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is accurate. There was an announcement. I'll find it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this had been threatened for some time, but the way that it has been done is very annoying; links to an entry in WCSP should have been forwarded to the corresponding entry in PoWO. WCSP had some features that don't appear to be as well implemented in PoWO, if at all. For example, WCSP used the exact codes in the WGSRPD; PoWO uses verbal terms that aren't always easy to relate to the WGSRPD code. Checklist generation is, at least at present, not developed in the same way. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not used the WCVP much, so I have no good frame of reference. If it will help, they provide a place where you can download that data here: (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They might store the WGSRPD codes but just aren't putting them in the data... hopefully. Perhaps a request? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don’t know where I came up with WCPV.
is this something that can be addressed in the citation template? Orr does it go deeper? I’ve been working all week and had no trouble going to POWO through citations or the taxonbar link. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's unfortunate that WCSP doesn't use the same identifier as POWO and IPNI. WCVP uses a shortened version, the number without the prefix, e..g., so could be fixed. I suppose we can hope that the transfer is incomplete and redirects will be provided. When the IUCN change their links it took a while for them to add redirects. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we have any idea how many WCSP citations there are? Perhaps we could contact Kew and use such a number to make the case for maintaining redirects, or at least giving us a one time database dump that maps IDs so we could have a bot migrate references. Steven Walling • talk 20:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1409 articles use the {{WCSP}} template. Another 534 pages have the link ":"". That's less than I expected. I'll try to do a better search tomorrow. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Searching for "World Checklist of Selected Plant Families" gives 8,528 hits. (And of course it currently appears in plant taxonbars.) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link search is probably more accurate. Maybe if we don't see redirects here shortly, we could email Kew and ask them for a mapping of IDs from WCSP links to POWO, so that we could have a bot replace them all. Steven Walling • talk 06:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Steven Walling: the link search is probably not more accurate, because other URLs are used, e.g. those containing "". Every page containing "World Checklist of Selected Plant Families" should really be checked, but clearly won't be. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseudolysimachion split-off from Veronica[]

Whether we like it or not, botany taxonomies tend to become more complicated and names less easily readable. I understand that at least the two species Veronica spicata and Veronica maritima were for some reason taken out of the genus Veronica. In the same family Plantaginaceae a new genus Pseudolysimachion was created for the two and possibly for more species. Pseudolysimachion contains the species Pseudolysimachion spicatum, L., Opiz and Pseudolysimachion maritimum, L., Á. Löve & D. Löve. Veronica spicata and Veronica maritima may still be listed as aliases, so that the species can be found by their old name. Accordingly in Wikipedia, a URL for Pseudolysimachion spicatum should not be forwarding to Veronica spicata. Instead Veronica spicata should newly be forwarding to Pseudolysimachion spicatum. Same for Pseudolysimachion maritimum.

The split-off of the new genus Pseudolysimachion from Veronica can be looked up in see Pseudolysimachion spicatum (L.) Opiz, Pseudolysimachion maritimum (L.) Á. Löve & D. Löve, Pseudolysimachion, and Veronica which still comprises a huge number of species with only 40 of them discovered in Switzerland.

The pages Veronica (plant) and Plantaginaceae would need to be updated and a new page Pseudolysimachion would be nice to have.

Unfortunately I don't know whether only spicata and maritima were moved into Pseudolysimachion. It seems, these are just the two species found in Switzerland which now belong to Pseudolysimachion. There could easily be more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pypes (talkcontribs) 16:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is and why should we favor them over any other website? Abductive (reasoning) 17:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a fairly long history of Pseudolysimachion being segregated from Veronica, but I don't know whether it was ever more than a minority opinion. There's about 30 species involved. POWO places them in Veronica. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Loves Plants photographic competition (iNaturalist)[]

Wikimedia South Africa will be hosting a photographic competition (Wiki Loves Plants) to encourage people to upload plant photographs for use on Wikipedia. This has grown out of a need for pictures of fynbos species but we thought we might as well expand it include all plants. The main challenge has been to get the photographed plants correctly identified. This is why we have decided to host the event on iNaturalist so they can be correctly identified there and then uploaded later on to Commons for use on Wikipedia. Pictures will only be eligible for the competition if they are uploaded under a Creative Commons copyright licence compatible with Wikimedia Commons. The competition will likely take place from January to February 2023. We have some modest prizes for winning photographs and will setup a banner add for January and February to let people on Commons & Wikipedia know about it. I wanted to leave a message here about the event as it is directly relevant to Wiki Project Plants. As this stage we need a few people to help out with volunteering to help judge winning photographs (judged according to their ability to accurately illustrate their respective Wikipedia article) and possible help move qualifying images over to commons. I still have to look into how to do a mass upload from iNatralist to Commons. Please let me know if you are interested in helping out. Discott (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been confused by various image issues for around 15 years now, so, not sure if I can help, but please do post a note here after a bunch of images have been uploaded at Commons and I'll take a look. I'd be very happy to see new fynbos pictures at Commons; I was just complaining the other day that I couldn't find a close-up of a Restio flower for my latest list. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question on common names[]

I have a probable stupid question, but I hope someone can answer anyway, for my own curiousity (and hoping it doesn't open some ancient and existential can of worms). When listing vernaculars in the lead, why do we seem to use or instead of and?

instead of

Perhaps or is grammatically correct in this instance? In the following, and is correct.

Not a big deal, just curious. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My instinctive response is that I agree with you, "or" in the first example and "and" in the second. However, "and" is used when all names apply and "or" when only one does. So can something be commonly known by more than one name? Clearly all can apply (suggesting "and"), but perhaps they are regional and only one applies in any one place (hence "or"). In short, I'm just thinking aloud and don't know. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not confined to plants: when listing alternative names, the lede of any article would typically go like "also known as X, Y or Z": see the format used by the opening sentence of MOS:LEAD itself. – Uanfala (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The consensus here is not to say "commonly known", but just "the". Froobius foobar, the example or sample, is species... See WP:WikiProject Plants/Template for more guidance on article layouts. Abductive (reasoning) 20:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abductive, I try to follow the template, but I don't see anything about how to phrase the common names in the lead there. Can you direct me as well as to the conversation about the consensus on how to word that, as well as using "the" with common names? I've check for the latter in more than one place in the MOS because that question recently came up in a GAN, and we couldn't find anything to verify a consensus either way (using "the" or not, e.g., "the Kentucky aster" or just "Kentucky aster"). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The consensus is rather like the unwritten British constitution. One must look at the articles created and ed (and especially corrections made) by the most experienced ors. In the case of "commonly", it is misleading to say that particular vernacular names are in common use. Some common names barely pass WP:V, others may be unheard of in modern times, and others are in common parlance. A species may have all of these at the same time. In other words, the average vernacular name is not "common" and is not "known". Abductive (reasoning) 22:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TL;DR reply
My non-scientific, semi-random selection of articles (listed below) shows that commonly known appears to be commonly used; the is used less than 50% of the time; more articles seem to use or rather than and; and, WP:EDITCON is of value, but it does not appear to be consistent among articles wrt this topic, so saying there is consensus on how to word the common name list in an article or lead of one is inaccurate (unless there is more detailed evidence).
Long reply:
WP:EDITCON doesn't mention "most experienced ors", but consensus through ing is of value. It does say that there should be an comment and a reason for a change (or revert), which we knew anyway. I don't have an opinion on using the or not using it, but I wanted to understand what you meant by "consensus". I've followed what I saw in the beginning, and in highly-rated plants articles. I hadn't thought about it, but that phrasing "commonly known" does imply something different than common name as we mean it in biology; misleading, as you say.
Some that I have ed (without the normal boldface and wikilinks):
  • Symphyotrichum lateriflorum (formerly Aster lateriflorus) is a species of flowering plant in the aster family (Asteraceae). Commonly known as calico aster, starved aster, and white woodland aster, it is native to eastern and central North America.... The flowers of calico aster.... [without the]
  • Symphyotrichum novae-angliae (formerly Aster novae-angliae) is a species of flowering plant in the aster family (Asteraceae) native to central and eastern North America. Commonly known as New England aster, hairy Michaelmas-daisy, or Michaelmas daisy...
  • Symphyotrichum kentuckiense (formerly Aster kentuckiensis) is a rare species of flowering plant in the Asteraceae family commonly known as Kentucky aster, Price's aster, Miss Price's aster, Sadie's aster, or lavender oldfield aster.
That is similar to what I have been doing elsewhere.
Of that genus before I came into the picture:
Spot checking a few other FAs and some GAs, commonly known appears to be commonly used; as well as commonly called and also known as; with and without the, more without.
  • Acacia pycnantha, most commonly known as the golden wattle, is a tree of the family Fabaceae native to southeastern Australia.
  • Ailanthus altissima, commonly known as tree of heaven, ailanthus, varnish tree, or in Chinese as chouchun...
  • Grevillea juniperina, commonly known as juniper- or juniper-leaf grevillea or prickly spider-flower...
  • Salvia yangii, previously known as Perovskia atriplicifolia, and commonly called Russian sage...
  • Lambertia formosa, commonly known as mountain devil, is a shrub of the family Proteaceae.
  • Isopogon anemonifolius, commonly known as broad-leaved drumsticks, is a shrub of the family Proteaceae.
  • Mammillaria spinosissima, also known as the spiny pincushion cactus...
And the list goes on. OTOH, here are some the usages without a mention of "common name".
  • Ficus rubiginosa, the rusty fig or Port Jackson fig (damun in the Dharug language), is a species of flowering plant native to eastern Australia in the genus Ficus.
  • Alnus glutinosa, the common alder, black alder, European alder, European black alder, or just alder.... The common alder provides food and shelter for wildlife...
  • Ornithogalum umbellatum, the garden star-of-Bethlehem, grass lily, nap-at-noon, or eleven-o'clock lady, a species of the genus...
I don't see that there is consensus through ing wrt all of this. We may just each have our preference or just do in good faith what we think is best. The examples with more than one vernacular use or, not and, which was my original question, and I'll make sure I use or because of what has been said in this entire thread, unless grammar says to use and. While I don't have a preference on using the, I do think it reads weird for plants. For animals, I can see it: "The bear is a..." instead of "Bear is a..."; "The dragonfly is..." rather than "Dragonfly is...". Without the before the vernacular name, the sentence reads as an anthropomorphism. Frog and Toad are Friends. With plants, neither option does. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may be necessary to go through and remove most of those instances of "commonly known" from plant articles. There are cases where phrasing requires no "the", such as Poa exampla, moneygrass,... which is sort of plural. Abductive (reasoning) 02:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it worth noting that commonly known in the English language doesn't mean the same as common name in Wikipedian. A list following commonly known just means that these are names that are used in common speech, not that the name would meet WP:COMMONNAME. It refers to vernacular names with a reasonable amount of usage. Anyway, I thought the question was whether to use "or" or "and" to separate the names. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abductive, I don't agree that removing the "commonly known" instances is necessary or even a good idea as it seems it would be a change to established articles simply because of personal preference, and, as Jts1882 said, not the discussion I came for anyway (refer to that can of worms I mentioned in the first sentence of the topic), although it has been a good conversation and food for thought, and I may change the few articles of which I am the creator or primary or to use different phrasing. I think it is very important to Wikilink whatever phrase is used to the article Common name in order to avoid confusion. Good info here about "or" and "and". Thanks for the discussion and the input, and, as always, I appreciate everyone's indulgence. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. Any thoughtful approach to handling the material is more likely to be constructive. Nevertheless, older articles on plants have accumulated a great deal of weedy text (such as listing the plant's vernacular names in a bunch of Indian languages) that needs pruning. It would take an or who could devote the time and effort to the task. Abductive (reasoning) 12:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abductive, I appreciate that lists of vernacular names are often of low quality, with odd transcriptions and absent sourcing, but that content is usually appropriate. Apart from the handful of widely cultivated and known plants (like pineapples or taro), and aside from the vast set of species that are only of interest to botanists, any article about a plant with some human uses (culinary, medicinal, ornamental..) should, in my opinion, list the names that the plant is known by in the cultures that use it. These names are likely to be used in the ethnographic literature, and they're much more likely to be encountered by readers in popular works (travel writing, fiction, journalism, DIY, etc.). For example, if you read a curry recipe, it's unlikely that it will instruct you to add a spoonful of Nigella sativa seeds; rather, it will tell you to add kalonji. – Uanfala (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm talking about things like Elwendia persica#Etymology where people feel compelled to add in every script, without any citations. Note that I have left the material in. Abductive (reasoning) 16:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lack of citations is the biggest problem in Elwendia persica, not the listing of cultural names IMO. In some cultures, the names of foods have a significance (religiously, spiritually, historically), and I think being sensitive to that is important. We are Wikipedia in the English language, not Wikipedia of English or Western bias. Anyone want to find reliable sources for those names and improve the article? Seems it would be a good exercise and growth experience. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pronunciation key for scientific name in Lead[]

So, someone made this change with the comment "There is no correct pronunciation for neolatin scientific names". MOS:PRON sort of hits on this at MOS:PRON#English (third paragraph); there is no instruction in our Taxon Template to have one (or not to have one). The change comment makes sense. What is normally done? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Jepson Manual (page 11 on my ion, "Pronunciation of Scientific Names") does outline pronunciation suggestions for neolatin names. This page may also be of interest to the conversation. Mbdfar (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have at least four books that give pronunciations for Neolatin scientific names, plus Stearn's Botanical Latin. Sometimes they agree; often they don't. Aechmea, which I last looked up, is a good example of disagreement. The second syllable can be pronounced as in "keep" or as in "get". The stress can be on the first or second syllable. The final "a" can be pronounced "ə" as the usual last syllable in "data" or as in "at". But I've heard hobbyists pronounce it "atch-MEE-a" with the first syllable as in "hatch". (Presumably "etch" and "eetch" for the first syllable are also possible.) Generally I favour not including pronunciation guidance, but I put a couple of sourced possibilities in the Aechmea article, because it seems to me an odd looking word. However, who knows which, if any, pronunciations are actually widely used, and whether this differs by country. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two informative responses. Thanks folks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My conclusion is that if I want to do it (and I really have no desire to, I was just being super diligent back then because I was working on that article in my early plants days and trying to make it "perfect", – ahhh so young and naïve), then whatever pronunciation(s) used should be reliably sourced and cited just like anything else, and surprisingly, I hadn't even thought about citing that! So it was a good removal, and I was just more or less curious, although I did include it as something minor in my Hall of Wikipedia WTFs. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If pronunciation is included, it should be sourced. Few articles include pronunciation (sourced or not). For a fair number of articles with sourced pronunciations, the source is the Sunset Western Garden Book; this is due to the work of a single or in the early days (2009) of Wikipedia. I don't think very many people know how to interpret IPA spellings; the practical benefit to readers is low. There is no such thing as a single "correct" pronunciation of a scientific name, but I think it is unusual to pronounce the "o" in Symphyotrichum as "ə". Plantdrew (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass undiscussed changes to gymnosperm taxonomy by Elmutanto[]

@Elmutanto:, a user with less than 100 s, has been making massive changes to the taxonomy of gymnosperms (particularly conifers and gnetophytes). Although the source of the taxonomy has not been explained, I assume it is from the proposed taxonomic scheme in Recent advances on phylogenomics of gymnosperms and a new classification published in July 2022 in Plant Diversity. I do not see how this recently published taxonomic scheme has a wide enough consensus yet to just straight out redirect and merge longstanding articles like Gnetophyta without consensus. I have undone the changes to the Gnetophyta related articles, but I would like to hear others thoughts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per their summary at Pinidae, they are following the July 2022 publication. Plantdrew (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Validity of Citrus amblycarpa[]

Could someone have a look at the validity of Citrus amblycarpa (new article)? There's a citation given for "Citrus amblycarpa Tanaka, nom. nud.", but that goes to an entry for "Citrus sphaerocarpa Tanaka, nom. nud." - and anyway, nomen nudum? PoWO thinks this refers to Citrus × amblycarpa (Hassk.) Ochse. I can't make heads or tails of it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can try to make sense of it if someone doesn't beat me to it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
tl;dr – Article doesn't look valid as written. IPNI doesn't have it, nor does COL. Tanaka has several nom. nud. names in Citrus listed in GRIN. Editor is brand new. Probably should be moved out of article space.
detail – There is no species with that name and authority at all in IPNI, which you likely already saw. The author given in the article is Chōzaburō Tanaka (a.k.a., Tyôzaburô Tanaka), at IPNI here In the article for him is written "Many of the species Tanaka described are still recognized, but his overall scheme is not supported by modern genetic research." You can see in the IPNI list that there is no Citrus amblycarpa or Citrus sphaerocarpa. I am not familiar with the criteria GRIN or IPNI use for having names in their databases. Pull up genus Citrus in GRIN at and you will see 8 nom. nud. names, all by this same Tanaka. If the or was intending to add an article for Citrus × amblycarpa (Hassk.) Ochse, then some mentoring is needed. They look like a brand new or. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eewilson: thanks for chasing that down! I thought the complete lack of database entries was worrisome. Note that reference 3 & 4 do refer to Citrus × amblycarpa (Hassk.) Ochse. Seems to me that the stub would work by shifting it to that taxon (for which good taxonomic sourcing is available). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. Yes, I think with a little tweaking of name and sources, it could work, assuming the other information is correct. But I have no idea. Didn't check that. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a helpful comment in the context of the discussion, but Citrus taxonomy seemed to be a total mess, with wide variations between sources when I looked at it. A problem appears to be that artificial hybrids and cultivars were historically treated as if they were true species, so there are many names in the literature that don't have a clear application. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Moringa#Requested move 7 November 2022[]


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Moringa#Requested move 7 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]