Talk:Hamamelididae

Italics

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna):

Orders, families and other taxa above genus level are written with an initial capital and in roman (not italic) text: bats belong to the class Chiroptera; rats and mice are members of the family Muridae and the order Rodentia.

This taxon is above genus level, therefore no italics. Soo 10:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

However, to repeat once again a fact that appears little known among wikipedians: plants do not belong to the fauna. Plant nomenclature is quite different from that of animals. Brya 10:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be different in this respect but I'm not particularly bothered. However the so-called "fundamental fact" was rightly removed; see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. If you can rephrase this in such a way as to avoid self-reference then please do; otherwise it shouldn't be in the article. Soo 13:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'ts "little known" because it is a rather obscure recommendation buried somewhere in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. It's a relatively new recommendation (not an article, as I recall), dating back only as far as the St. Louis (or possibly Tokyo) Code and although I thought I knew the code well (and I know it's in there somewhere) I'm still trying to find it. Italicization of names of ranks above genus is considered entirely optional (much like the use of "phylum" instead of "division"), and is followed by some but certainly not all systematic botanists. Since Wikipedia deals with both zoological and botanical names, my own recommendation would be to use italics only for ranks of genus and below for both plant and animal names, if only for consistency. MrDarwin 14:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally found it! It's not in any articles or recommendations of the Code itself, it's in the Preface to the Code. According to the preface of the Tokyo Code:

The method by which some or all scientific names are set off in printed text varies substantially between different countries and language traditions. Perhaps as a result, there has been an unevenness in this regard in different editions of the Code. In an attempt to achieve uniformity, the Sydney Code and the Berlin Code italicized all scientific names at the rank of family and below, i.e. those for which priority is mandatory. The present Editorial Committee recognized that this policy was rather illogical, and, in the Tokyo Code, all scientific names falling under the provisions of the Code are italicized, whereas informal designations appear in Roman type. For example, in Art. 13.1 (d) the ordinal names Uredinales, Ustilaginales, etc. are italicized, whereas the informal group name "fungi" is not. The Editorial Committee considers this to be the most appropriate form of presentation in a code of nomenclature but does not aim to impose this as a standard to be followed in other publications, which may have different editorial traditions, often of long standing.

and the current St. Louis Code:

As in the previous edition, scientific names under the jurisdiction of the Code, irrespective of rank, are consistently printed in italic type. The Code sets no binding standard in this respect, as typography is a matter of editorial style and tradition not of nomenclature. Nevertheless, editors and authors, in the interest of international uniformity, may wish to consider adhering to the practice exemplified by the Code, which has been well received in general and is being followed in an increasing number of botanical and mycological journals.

So there you have it: it's not even at the level of "recommendation" in the current Code. Again, in the name of consistency (insofar as it's possible for the zoological and botanical codes to be consistent with respect to each other!), I would recommend that if zoological names are not italicized, then botanical names not be italized either. MrDarwin 15:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

These both quotes set out the case clearly. Italicization is not explicitly part of the ICBN (not at any rank), and all that the ICBN does is to lead by example. The ICBN italicizes scientific names, botanical and zoological, at all ranks. There is a strong current in Wikipedia to treat botanical names as if they are names of animals, in all aspects applying the ICZN as most Users are not aware of plants. I have been trying to raise awareness among Users that there is such a thing as plant and plant nomenclature. I will see how far I get. Two final points:

• wikipedia does italicize both zoological and botanical names
• wikipedia definitely prescribes allowing Users a degree of freedom in the layout and adopted spelling of their contributions. Brya 16:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As to the self-reference this follows from Wikipedia having adopted a PoV as its standard. In Wikipedia APG II is religiously applied to all plant names within the angiosperms, which means that the default is for an angiosperm plant name to be used sensu APG II. If that were not the case this would indeed be an inappropriate self-reference. However, as it is, this is statement of fact. Brya 17:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To move my response from the ToL page to this one: Brya argues above that one cannot apply the rules in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) to plants. This is logical. However, the corresponding page for plants, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) supports the general ToL guideline that states that ranks above genus are not italicized. Thus, there is no support for the continued conversion by Brya of plain text names to italicized names, back and forth, as has occurred in the Hamamelididae article and others. The claim that WP allows editors "a degree of freedom in the layout and adopted spelling of their contributions," while literally true, cannot and should not be construed to mean that an editor can alter layout and spelling in violation of posted guidelines for a formal Wikipedia Project; a degree of freedom is just that - a DEGREE of freedom - not carte blanche to refuse to conform to either Project guidelines or to broader community conventions on formatting, and to consistently undermine the sincere efforts of other editors to adhere to these conventions. The ICBN is not the community standard, and even states this (as noted above) - so, when WP asks that editors follow an "appropriate standard" this case resolves to a simple matter of following the standard put forth in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). That is, no italics for higher taxon names, whether the ICBN does so or not. I will, accordingly, restore the names on this page to non-italicized form, in accordance with ToL standards, and respectfully request that Brya abandon this unjustifiable campaign to convert all botanical names in WP to suit idiosyncratic personal tastes. Dyanega 17:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)