This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 3 months ago9 comments3 people in discussion
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:
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In the Iris florentina case, the paper was retracted for duplication, so the retraction doesn't per se cast doubt on the results.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 | talk10:13, 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)
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)
Display Eukaryota in taxoboxes?
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Apple has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have an editor on Talk:Honeysuckle#redirect asking for a page move. I was apparently confused by their original request, but they have further explained the reason now, and it seems like a fully legit page move to me. From their explanation, and looking at the species pages myself, I do not see an issue with their move request. I just wanted to get a second opinion from someone more active with plant articles to confirm before I moved the page, in case y'all have any additional standards that would stop the move. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Calathea cylindrica?
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I ran into this when I looked at Prosopis glandulosa. An edit was made saying it is Neltuma glandulosa. Doing a quick search on JSTOR I didn't find any recent usage of Neltuma glandulosa. It is also almost flat on Google Ngram]. On the other hand I did find a paper this year on BioOne using Neltuma glandulosa as well as one using Prosopis glandulosa. From all this I assumed there must have been a paper published somewhere and I found "Disintegration of the genus Prosopis L. (Leguminosae, Caesalpinioideae, mimosoid clade)", arguing that most of Prosophis should be Anonychium, Neltuma, or Strombocarpa. That appears to be what POWO has done (see links). It looks like they did it earlier this year. Is this a too soon or something that should be moved soon? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
That's one of sixteen papers in a part one of a two part special issue of PhytoKeys. My impression is that while some of the individual papers have few authors, the whole issue is something of a group effort by the community of legume specialists. The first part of the issue paves the way for the second part which is a single 552 page paper, with 48 authors, that gives a tribal classification of Caesalpinioideae. Plantdrew (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The preface of the second paper confirms your impression. Together the 16 papers in issue 205 of Phytokeys (2022) and the monograph in issue 240 (2024) form parts 1 and 2, respectively, of the 14th volume of the Advances in Legume Systematics, started by Polhill and Raven in 1981.
An easy way to see the revised generic compositions is the use the treeview on the ChecklistBank upload at https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/2304/classification?taxonKey=2536375 (May 2024). Unfortunately, they haven't included the subfamilies and tribes and just have the genus list, as with the main WCVP upload. This is the only part of WCVP that has a separate ChecklistBank upload, so I was hoping for something different. — Jts1882 | talk10:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Progress report on missing genera from PoWO, July 2024
Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
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)
Upcoming International Botanical Congress vote on "offensive" binomial names
Latest comment: 3 months ago15 comments6 people in discussion
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."
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)
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)
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 | talk06:21, 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)
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)
Latest comment: 3 months ago13 comments6 people in discussion
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[1] 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 | talk06:57, 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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
Clarify guidance on exclusion of year from taxobox authority?
Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
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)
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)
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)
Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, I wonder if anyone can advise me, please. I'm still rather new to Wikipedia, and I've been working on a new page for Aster incisus in my sandbox. Since beginning it I have realized that a stub article already exists under the alternative name Kalimeris incisa. I understand that the name is disputed, but haven't been able to find out for certain which name is preferred. Any advice would be very much appreciated. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
That's a mess. POWO accepts Aster incisus, as does the Flora of China website. WFO and the Global Compositae Database accept Kalimeris incisa (although the GCD record is flagged as unreviewed). Tropicos has Aster incisus accepted by "Flora of China Editorial Committee. 2011.", and Kalimeris incisa accepted by " Flora of China Editorial Committee. 1988-2013. Flora of China (Checklist & Addendum)." Given that Tropicos seems to be suggesting a change in the Flora of China treatment since it was physically published, I'd be inclined to go with Kalimeris incisa. Plantdrew (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
POWO has it in Aster; RHS has it in Kalimeris.
The old Aster got chopped into many pieces (the North American species ended up in Symphyotrichium and several other genera, and several European species ended up in Galatella, Crinitaria and Tripolium. I wondered if this pair of names was part of the same process, but on looking at Google Scholar this seems not to be the case. Instead several small East Asian genera, including Kalimaris, have been sunk into Aster - see this paper. For a fuller picture look at the references therein, and any citations made to it. Subject to further study, it seems appropriate to move Kalimeris incisa to Aster incisus, whereupon you can merge your material into it.
Thank you, @Lavateraguy and @Plantdrew: I really appreciate your thoughts. I'm happy to go with the majority opinion (if there is one). Should I simply add the material on my draft page to expand Kalimeris incisa, and wait for a consensus on the name, do you think? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago11 comments4 people in discussion
I think that at one time there may have been a fairly good page about Heterophylly, but recent history shows converting a redirect to something else. It is now an inappropriate redirect to Heterophily. Can someone who knows how to look at ancient page history work out what has happened there? Heterophyllous is showing as a red link in a few places such as on Pinguicula. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to redirect to the Glossary of botanical terms and start working on an article for heterophyllous in the draft space if I do not see objections. Edit to add: Also, clearly I should try making a list of every possible botanical term and watching all those redirects for well intention people who do not know about plants editing them. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
That is much better, thanks! So there's no way to recover whatever was there ... I think there might have been this image One of each pair of leaves at a node is tiny. to show the extreme size dimorphism in the two leaves at a node in some Columnea species. That's not the easiest image to interpret, but unfortunately we don't have any pictures of Columnea hookeriana. (There are other types of heterophylly of course.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I have no idea if it is recoverable or not. I just did a search for heterophylly and found the redirects for discussion that I linked. If there was an earlier discussion for heterophyllous I did not find it, but my searching could be weak. I just tried searching for both terms on all the templates, template talk, and wikipedia talk with the assumption that a deletion discussion would show up. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I've bodged up a first edit of a draft at Draft:Heterophyllous. I'm self taught and relying on books I've found on archive.org, so I would appreciate other editors working on it. Or even just pointing me at sources and saying, "Look there." For a basic explanation I think The Growth of Leaves has not lead me too far wrong on the difference between heteroblastic and heterophyllous. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah yes, I'm sure you are right, I have misremembered. That image is used at Anisophylly. There's a bit of variation in usage, but I'd be happy with a distinction being kept here between the two, rather than cramming that meaning into heterophylly. Perhaps the simplest solution is to restrict heterophylly to the aquatic plants and have a largish "see also" section on each page. However, we have seasonal heterophylly (and Lammas growth separate). It's a bit of a tangle. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
1) I think that the article should be at the noun (heterophylly) rather than the adjective (heterophyllous).
2) I think that the distinction between heterophylly and heteroblasty is as honoured in the breach as in the observance, but confirming that probably requires original research. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the good suggestions. I will keep looking and see if I can find any sources that discuss how heterophylly and heteroblasty are actually used in literature as opposed to how they are defined in theory. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I recently updated the taxonomy of Hibiscus × rosa-sinensis, treating it as a nothospecies. The treatment is accepted by PoWO and is based on:
Braglia, Luca; Thomson, Lex A. J.; Cheek, Martin; Mabberley, David J. & Butaud, Jean-François (2024), "Pacific Species of Hibiscus sect. Lilibiscus (Malvaceae). 4. The Origin of Hibiscus Rosa-Sinensis: A 300-Year-Old Mystery Solved", Pacific Science, 77 (4): 395–415, doi:10.2984/77.4.3
The authors are in favour of splitting Hibiscus and Pavonia, but only introduced 3 of the necessary new genera (Astrohibiscus, Blanchardia and Cravenia), though they do propose resurrecting quite a few older generic names. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Should these uncited articles be merged or deleted or cited or what?
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments6 people in discussion
Two species of genus Rughidia appear in the IUCN Red List, but neither the genus nor the species appear in Plants of the World Online or World Flora Online. Based on the GBIF occurrences, Rughidia cordatum may be a synonym of Peucedanum cordatumBalf.f. No idea about Rughidia milleri. Any insights? Tom Radulovich (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Interesting. It seems that Rughidia and its species are not listed in POWO/WFO/IPNI (though Peucedanum cordatum is) because none of them have been validly published. They are listed in the World Plants checklist and in several papers on Apiaceae, with the ined. (meaning unpublished) qualifier. I haven't yet tracked down the paper that initially proposed these names (will edit this comment if I do), but this paper[3] from 2000 notes of R. cordata and R. milleri that "the name is not intended by the authors to be formally published in this paper; a formal description of this Socotran taxon is currently being prepared". It seems that no formal description was ever published, with articles as recent as this year[4] still noting that these names have not been validly published. Not quite sure where that leaves us, though... Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
In our passes through Apiaceae while converting to automatic taxoboxes, Peter coxhead and I have intentionally left manual taxoboxes in place for these taxa (that is, we refrained from creating a probably unnecessary taxonomy template for Rughidia). Rughidia milleri at least should perhaps be deleted (along with a bunch of other articles created by Polbot for IUCN listed "species" that haven't been formally published). Plantdrew (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
In the case of "Dysphania incisa", POWO accepts only, that this species belongs to genus Dysphania. It was transferred to this genus as Dysphania graveolens (Lag. & Rodr.) Mosyakin & Clemants, but this name is a nom. illeg., and a replacement name has not yet been published [see https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dysphania_graveolens]. The oldest basionym would be Chenopodium incisum Poir., Encycl. [J. Lamarck & al.] Suppl. 1. 392 (1810). --Thiotrix (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Rughidia cordata (Balf. fil.) M. F. Watson & E. L. Barclay ined. is also provisionally accepted with synonym (and apparently supposedly basionym) Peucedanum cordatum Balf. fil., which is accepted in POWO. https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/6WXC7
It is my understanding that we don't make or keep articles for the unaccepted, including provisionally accepted. Moving R. cordata appears to have been the right call, and I think the other two could be fast deleted. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Cheers for moving that one Tom. I went ahead and PRODed Rughidia and R. milleri, as I expect little disagreement, but if any dissenting opinions arise I'll move forward to AfD and go from there. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Hybrid articles
Latest comment: 1 month ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Could someone please direct me to either a Wikipedia policy or essay OR something in the Plants project that contains discussion about when to create an independent article for a nothospecies (hybrid)? I have read this more than once, may have saved the information, but I can't find it now. Thanks! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't find any existing guidelines or essays that specifically cover hybrids. The WP:NSPECIES proposal suggests that hybrids be presumed non-notable unless they meet WP:GNG, and while that guideline hasn't yet been adopted I think it's reflective of the general consensus on how hybrids should be handled. Is there a particular one you had in mind? I would be happy to help research and check for SIGCOV if you'd like. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for checking! Yes, actually, if you wouldn't mind. Take a look at the list in this article (Cirsium greimleri#Hybridisation). Cirsium greimleri was nominated as a candidate for GA, and I pulled it for review. It surprised me to see seven hybrid species articles listed here, Wikilinked and all very recently created (July 2024). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Interesting! I'll ping @Иованъ, as they are both the nominator for Cirsium greimleri and the creator of the various hybrid articles. Thanks for all your work on these articles!
Some of the hybrid articles (Cirsium × stroblii and Cirsium × sudae) don't appear to have SIGCOV, but others (eg. Cirsium × juratzkae and Cirsium × stiriacum) are more borderline - I would say there's enough literature to qualify as SIGCOV, but others may disagree, and I'm not exceedingly confident they would all survive AfD. I think there is more than enough to be said on the hybrids of C. greimleri to warrant more than just a mere list in the species article, but perhaps not enough to warrant individual articles for each hybrid - my gut instinct is to merge all of the hybrid articles into a collective article (Hybrids of Cirsium greimleri, perhaps?) and give each their own section. Currently, I think there is a non-negligible chance of at least some of these articles being taken to AfD and deleted or merged for failing GNG, but I don't want to see all this useful information (and hard work) go to waste. I think condensing all of the hybrid articles together and retaining their content is the best way of preserving the information without risking deletion, but that's just my opinion - curious to hear what others think on this. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for looking and for your input. What I did for List of Symphyotrichum species was include the hybrids there within their respective subgenera. That seemed to work out nicely. If the hybrid articles were to be deleted, the List of Cirsium species (which could use a lot of work) includes hybrids. Minimal information from any respective article could be added there. The hybrid article names could be made redirects. I'm not suggesting it be done that way. Expanding (and keeping current!) such a large list of species as is in Cirsium (lots of thistles!) and hybrid species would be quite the challenge. I'm curious about the policy, if any, of hybrid article creation in this project, whether or not we have ever had discussion about it, if something be written on the taxon template page about this, for example. When I did the Symphyotrichum list expansion in 2021, I was sure about this enough to place a footnote in the article that reads "Hybrids do not have their own articles.", not to state a policy internal to Wikipedia, but to let the reader know why they don't see a link to any hybrid articles. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for having me.
Thanks for all your work on these articles! My pleasure! Though it pales in comparison.
I am more of a "lumper" than a "splitter". Case in point? List of Glagolitic manuscripts (1.3 MB). But I would contend that keeping nothospecies articles separate is more consistent with established practice here (Category:Plant nothospecies). Since nothospecies are also species, and feature extensively on "lists of species" from authoritative sources such as PoWO, it follows that the species-related policies also apply to nothospecies. But let us suppose "nothospecies" were determined by consensus to not be species. For individual "species" sensu stricto, it is not required that their articles reach a certain size before being split off from the article of their genus. Rather, in imitation of established practice in paper encyclopedias, they are allowed their own "stubby" articles, thereby averting endless split-merge disputes. To draw a parallel from Notability (geographic features), the current practice per WP:NTOWN is to allow standalone stubs for any "populated, legally recognized places" no matter how small, while keeping unofficial entities merged until they are long enough to stand alone. Since these hybrids with valid names are in question, the botanical equivalent of "unofficial" would be hybrids without such names, some of which are indeed notable enough thanks to high coverage per WP:GNG.
Outside of the context of Wikipedia, with all its technical limitations, the idea to merge all of the articles into a single "Genus nothospecies" article is a good one. Especially if the individual articles are not expected to expand much. The genus Cirsium is itself rather "borderline", however, as there are nearly as many nothospecies as there are species, so all but the most cursory coverage would result in a prohibitively long article. If you want to see what Cirsium greimleri looked like when hybrids were included, you can read the "Hybridisation" section of its first version. More was added, and more still could (and should) be added for all but the very rare Cirsium × stroblii and Cirsium × sudae as has been correctly noted. There is far more literature on most of these nothospecies than my small selection would suggest, especially in German and Russian. Most of the information contained in the Cirsium hybrid articles is from Public Domain works, but most of what has been written on them dates to a later period, so one can imagine what sort of articles could be produced we had more time (we also wrote but have not yet published Cirsium waldsteinii among others).
Looking at some of those articles, many/most are accepted by POWO ("[t]his hybrid is accepted"), which can be used to support having an article (as we do for plant species), specially as these articles aren't bare stubs. I did find one that isn't: Populus × jackii Sarg. ("This name is a synonym of Populus × ontariensis"), although it also had the comment "[T]his name was accepted following an alternative taxonomy by these authorities: <<8 references>>. The article Populus × jackii doesn't mention ontariensis. — Jts1882 | talk15:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
It seems that there has been no substantial discussion about it on the Plants project pages that anyone can point to.
Since the discussion of what constitutes a notable nothospecies for an article is outside the scope of my question, I'll direct us back to that, which was, to paraphrase myself, "Where has it been discussed?" I likely saw someone's comment a few years ago and made an assumption that we generally don't create plants nothospecies articles. I don't think that was an incorrect assumption.
A discussion is in process now. As Ethmostigmus states above,
The WP:NSPECIES proposal [at Wikipedia:Notability (species) ] suggests that hybrids be presumed non-notable unless they meet WP:GNG, and while that guideline hasn't yet been adopted I think it's reflective of the general consensus on how hybrids should be handled.
Ivan, how did you know this so quickly? I couldn't find information about this, and that page makes it appear as though it is active. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
The subproject relied on requesting directly on that page. Most requests post-2009 come from student projects. See Talk:Fontainea venosa for user page request solution to subproject inactivity. Ivan (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Possibly... I hesitate to put myself forward for reviewing as I can be a little inconsistent in responding to requests that don't seem "fun" to my hindbrain. Despite the fact that I find it fun to go through every single citation on a page like Apple. Possibly because I do not have a ticking clock telling me to get that done and I check them as it amuses me. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I would be interested in participating! I don't have any experience with the GA/FA process, so I'm not sure how useful I would be, but I am quite happy to assist with research/copyediting/formatting etc. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Chloroplast DNA
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Botanically interested editors,
Two things I just noticed: The page Chloroplast DNA uses a linked "image" generated by {{Chloroplast DNA}}, which at least for me renders dreadfully and sills off the page margin.
One could replace it with its SVG equivalent File:CtDNA.svg, but that would lose all of the wikilinks in the template markup.
On a related note, our List of sequenced plastomes is hopelessly out of date, and I am not sure the advantages in genomics allow for a manually curated list of this form anymore.
Anyone have any ideas on either score? Felix QW (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Notability of accepted nothospecies
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Onion has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
History of discovery and cultivation
Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, fellow editors.
I have been researching a few plant species that I am currently working on improving the Wikipedia articles for. I have found a large amount of information on the early cultivation and history of one of these species, and I would like to add this information somewhere to the Wikipedia article.
Under what section of the article (Description, Taxonomy etc.) should I include this information in? Would there also be any particular layout to include it under or just as regular sentences?
I like to include any information about the discovery and naming of a species and any taxonomic changes over time in a section titled "Taxonomy and history", and include information about cultivation and other human uses for a species in sections titled either "Uses" and/or "Cultivation" (you can use one or the other, or use both, depending on the information you have access to). I prefer include this information in prose, but depending on the situation a table may also be appropriate? If there's a particular article you had in mind and would like assistance with I am happy to give it a go :) Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I would appreciate some help with the article for the newly-described species, Grevillea milleriana, as well as a page creation for Grevillea gilmourii, described in the same paper, so you can reuse citations from the G. milleriana article.
I am currently researching and taking notes from my books to add more information to the articles of grevilleas of Greater Sydney, mainly Grevillea buxifolia, G. caleyi, G. sphacelata, G. sericea and G. speciosa, so I would appreciate some help for those or any other grevillea articles really. I hope to get these articles in particular to Good Article status.
Sounds like an excellent project, I'm in :) I've already got a few small improvements in mind for the G. milleriana article that I can get done this evening. If there's anything in particular you need help with or want to discuss feel free to ping me or reach out via my talk page. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
If so (and feel free to explain why or why not), what ought we do with names and synonyms that aren't accepted by WCVP and/or POWO (Rughidia, Vatica latiffii, etc.)? Should they be always be deleted or merged? There may be a valid reason to keep such an article or redirect – POWO offers the disclaimer that "We aim to incorporate the latest published taxonomy but sometimes papers are overlooked"[5]. If such articles or redirects are kept here should they be consistently categorized (something like Category:Taxobox binomials not recognized by IUCN, but for POWO or WCVP)? I don't think Wikipedia benefits from having as many redirects as it does for misspelled or invalid taxa, since they invite more misspelling and ambiguity about names. And I know the process here makes it hard to delete questionable redirects. I'm curious what other folks think. Tom Radulovich (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
This may already be covered on one of the project pages. Try either the main page or the tax on template page. I would start on the main page 1st. I'm pretty sure it's covered there. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
My understanding has been that POWO/WCVP is not definitive, but rather is the best source available with worldwide coverage. Your question spurred me to look for a review about the reliability of POWO and I found a paper titled The big four of plant taxonomy – a comparison of global checklists of vascular plant names. It confirms there are major problems with POWO, but that the other three major sources also have major faults, though apparently not identical ones. Also, the fern fans here on Wikpedia largely prefer World Ferns/World Plants by Michael Hassler as POWO does a lot of lumping they disagree with.
My opinion is that here at Wikipedia we are free to ignore POWO/WCVP when it disagrees with many other reasonably current sources. In the particular case of Vatica latiffii, I looked into World Flora Online and World Plants and then did a search in JSTOR, BioOne, Wiley, and Springer. I only found one use of the name in one paper in Springer, and a passing reference at that. Since it is a stub with pretty much no information I'm inclined to just delete it until it actually shows up in at least one of World Flora Online, World Plants, or POWO. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
The article for Vatica latiffii appears to have been created by the person who described the species, and while I don't have any reason to doubt their integrity or the validity of the species, I agree that the article is very much premature in the absence of any real external coverage. Plant species should at minimum have an entry in IPNI, WFO, or World Plants to even be considered for an independent article. I'll WP:PROD it. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
In the case of Vatica latiffii I suspect that the journal was overlooked by IPNI because of obscurity (or possibly because they're now relying on authors informing them of new names); I've created an account, and filled in a form for Vatica latiffii. Whether this will propagate to POWO, I can't say. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I've brought several overlooked names to IPNI's attention over the years (plus my sole published name - an intragenic horticultural hybrid). Also at least one spurious name, and assorted inaccuracies in records. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
No source is definitive. An encyclopaedia has to consider alternative views. However, there needs to be consistency across different articles (we can't treat half a genus with one name and the other half with a synonym accepted elsewhere), so the different projects choose one favoured guideline source for decisions on article title and the taxonomy used in the taxoboxes (there usually isn't much choice; plants and birds being exceptions). So for what is considered an accepted name and which the synonym, we'd follow POWO (above ferns) for decisions on the page title and taxobox and discuss differences of opinion in the text. If another source has additional synonyms to those in POWO these can be added to the taxobox with a reference (there is no need to limit them to those given by POWO). However, this doesn't mean exceptions can't or shouldn't be made if reliable sources are available and consensus can be reached (e.g. for ferns, which follows World Ferns, which follows PPG, the fern equivalent of APG). — Jts1882 | talk06:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I think what you said here contradicts what the main page of the project says (not the part about POWO, but the part about using other sources for additional synonyms in the taxobox): "If another source has additional synonyms to those in POWO these can be added to the taxobox with a reference (there is no need to limit them to those given by POWO)." Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants#"Synonyms" of scientific names reads, in part, "... it is not appropriate to accumulate a list of 'synonyms' from multiple sources, since the separate sources may not be compatible with one another." – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
What would you do in the case of Peucedanum_cordatum, which as discussed above is accepted by POWO whereas others use Rughidia cordata? Searching POWO for Rughidia cordata or Rughidia finds nothing. I think the guideline is to prevent lists of synonyms gathered from many different sources, rather than prohibition of anything apart from POWO. — Jts1882 | talk07:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Completely agree with MtBotany and Jts1882. POWO is incredibly useful, but lags somewhat behind WFO, excludes non-vascular plants, and makes particular taxonomic choices that not everyone else agrees with. It's usually the first taxonomic source I check for (vascular) plants, but it's definitely not the best or only source. WP:PLANTS guidelines instruct us to (generally) follow the classification put forth by the Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group for ferns and lycophytes instead of the classification by the RBG. For synonyms I sometimes find WFO preferable to POWO, as WFO seems to be updated far more frequently and can be more comprehensive, but checking all of the major taxonomic databases is certainly a good practice - they all have their own strengths and weaknesses.
A name having no mention in POWO or IPNI is not necessarily a red flag (neither database includes non-vascular plants, sadly), but a name having no mention in IPNI, POWO, WFO, or World Plants is, in my opinion, an indicator that the species has not been scrutinised enough to be included in Wikipedia, at least not yet. It's textbook WP:TOOSOON.
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
GA nomination might be overkill, but I am looking to improve an article as much as possible before publishing many similar articles in genus Cirsium and wondering if anyone is available. Thank you in advance. Ivan (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments4 people in discussion
After four years editing plant articles and being a part of the project, I still am unclear on a basic concept. Does the Plants project cover only what is in kingdom Plantae, no more and no less? It kind of says so in the introductory sentence ("Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize information in articles related to plants.") The Wikilink for "plants" goes to the page on the kingdom. Note: this question will have a follow-up question. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, it does cover humans who study plants (primarily taxonomists, not necessarily molecular biologists). Red algae (included in "plants" if that is defined as Archaeplastida) and green algae (included if defined as Viridiplantae) are tagged for WikiProject Algae, not this project (but some Charophytes are tagged for Plants (13 articles)). A smattering of diseases of plants caused by non-plant organisms are tagged for this project (~312 articles, but quite a few are lists of diseases infecting a particular genus/species). Several animals in Category:Nepenthes infauna had once been tagged for WikiProject Carnivorous plants, but it seems that the only one left now is Phyllocnistis nepenthae.
I am responsible for removing plant tags from some red and green algae taxa, but there were never very many algae articles tagged for plants. Plantdrew (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
You can get an idea where people are having trouble deciding edge cases by looking in the Unassesed articles list here. Some examples; botanical illustrators, legendary plants, ecosystems/habitats/ecological communities, drugs and other products derived from plants, websites and organizations related to plants, emergent effects of plants, and various cultural items. Abductive (reasoning)10:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I'd would have said that the taxonomic scope is Embryophyta (land plants, though that term encompasses sea-grasses and various other aquatic plants) aka Plantae sensu strictissimo. Charophyceae/Charales are a bit of an edge case, as they have been treated as honorary land plants, and studied by phytologists rather than phycologists. (The BSBI's scope is Tracheophyta + Charales (there's a British Bryological Society that covers non-vascular plants), but Bing Copilot - as a proxy for the consensus of material online - places charology within phycology rather than phytology. I suspect that "stoneworts" as plants is now mostly historical, but their habit and habitat makes them potentially a fit for the attention of a field botanist.) Lavateraguy (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Is this an example of De-extinction or a Lazarus taxon?
Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Recently, the same institute behind revival the formerly extinct Judean date palm through 2000-year-old seeds found in Herad the Great's palace in Masada grew another ancient seed into a never-before-seen tree. Is this an example of a de-extinction in the same way as their previous revived plant through germination of ancient seeds, or is this a Lazarus taxon in the same way as the coelacanth being rediscovered off the coast of South Africa after being presumed extinct for 66 million years?
In case someone else is interested, the findings have been detailed in a scientific paper.[1] The case is a little different to the Judean date palm, since the latter does not seem to be a distinct species but merely a cultivar of the common date palm, Phoenix dactylifera. On the other hand, initial phylogenetic analysis suggests that the newly discovered 1,000-year old Commiphora is actually a species new to science. The reason it is not formally described as of yet is that the specimen they have grown has not flowered, as flowers are key diagnostic criteria of Commiphora species. Felix QW (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
So, this is an entirely new species discovered as opposed to a Lazarus taxon like the coelacanth which was known from fossils prior to its rediscovery in the 1930s? I think that I will list it under the successful de-extinctions section on the de-extinction page for now. I do not have enough knowledge on the subject to create a new page for this alleged tsori plant. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I put it on the de-extinction and endling articles as part of the successful de-extinction section and plant endling section. Since Sheba is technically an endling right now similar to Fernanda the Fernandina Island tortoise despite recent discovery and rediscovery, and I put it under successful de-extinctions due to Sheba's species being presumed extinct. I will list it on the longest living organisms and list of resurrected species article as well, thank you for the suggestions! I think that list of species first described when revived by humans list also may be necessary for if Colossal Biosciences is successful in reviving the woolly mammoth, because its behaviour was never formerly studied or described to my knowledge. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh sweet! I mostly wanted to throw in my two cents, but since plants (and taxonomy) are not really my thing I definitely wasn't expecting it to have an impact on where it goes. If that list ever gets made, I'd definitely be down to help on the microbe/protist side of it! Cyanochic (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to join the WikiProject Plants Stub-to-Start Drive
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It's official!
Hello WikiProject Plants/Archive77! I would like to invite you to join the WikiProject Plants Stub-to-Start Drive where we focus efforts on upgrading Stub-class plant species articles to Start-class. The instructions are straightforward and located on the page for the drive. If you wish to participate, you can join on the sign-up page, or feel free to ask for assistance on the talk page any time. Thank you for your contributions and for your interest in plant articles on Wikipedia! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments3 people in discussion
This article, created 10 October 2024 by user Treeenthusiast, is not in POWO, World Ferns, World Plants, COL, or WFO. The sole citation in text form "Dr. Paul Standley, Trees of Mexico, page 41" is given. It is currently an orphan article (other than category and assessment pages). I think this may qualify for deletion. Thought I'd throw it out here. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
