User talk:Peter coxhead/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Peter coxhead. 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.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

This taxon looks very doubtfully valid. Just a database ghost. PoWO cannot be trusted as always perfect, it might be Wikipedia's job to mindlessly parrot whatever fancy database gets made, but we can think logically about stuff, no? It is described from exactly the same distribution in SE Brazil by a German in the 1930 as A. megapotamica. A. megapotamica is itself presently described as a very rare species restricted to a few mountains, and it is recognised as the only valid species to occur in Brazil fide Flora do Brasil 2020. I would tend to believe the Brazilians about Brazilian plants in this case. Giving PoWO pre-eminence over local floras seems a tad biased too. 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:A41F:5237:61C0:C92E (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very well aware that PoWO is not always error-free (I had a correction accepted today). But neither are regional floras, and in general they can cause problems when the locally accepted taxonomies don't mesh together. Our task is to report what all reliable sources say, but for cross-article and cross-country consistency we need to start with international sources like PoWO, and then include alternative views, which is what is being done, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, everyone makes mistakes, but in this case the two regional floras mesh together fine, and what we are taking about is really the validity of a taxon - the regional floras don't accept it based on a publication that PoWO hasn't seen, based on bibliography. Either PoWO read it and rejected it and then tried to quash all mention of it, or they just didn't read it. It's a reasonably old publication in Portuguese, this type of stuff was often overlooked in English language literature. How 'bout this: if you make me a bare-bones page with a taxobox about this species, I'll put everything up I've found. If it exists at all, it hasn't been seen since it was collected. The article might be funny. 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:A41F:5237:61C0:C92E (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

If the evidence is strong, a better approach is to communicate with PoWO and see if they will consider a change. Pending that, I think a single article at Arjona megapotamica with a redirect from Arjona schumanniana is justified. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

See Update below. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Right now I can't get any of the searches in the online Flora do Brasil to work. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Redirect: seems a good idea.

Flora do Brasil: Odd, it's working for me. Try the Portuguese version? Navigate via the taxonomic panel? You know there are actually two websites, you need the 2020 one. You need to fill in a genus and a species name in the search panel here. The site has great info, but navigation sucks. The link I put above doesn't work, but on the page it says "link to page: yadayada". I don't know what url to use here.

Arjona PoWO distributions: Yeah, but this is imprecise: regarding A. schumanniana, it was originally collected as a number of specimens from presumably the same locality roughly in the 1820s by Friedrich Sellow, at least two of these specimens ended up in the Berlin Herbarium and were labelled A. brasiliensis by Karl Moritz Schumann sometime in the late 19th century when he was the boss there (a probable nomen nudum). In 1930 Pilger renamed the taxon A. schumanniana in honour of Schumann -he notes that he decided on the name change because as there was no collection data, and Sellow had visited Uruguay, there was no way of knowing if it had been collected in either Brazil or Uruguay. In fact, if you look at this photograph of the type specimen hosted by the Chicago Field Museum, you can see the original label by Johann Friedrich Klotzsch, I believe -he writes Montevideo on it (and identifies it as a Quinchamalium (it has yellowish flowers)). You'll note the Chicago Field Museum considers this type specimen photograph as a sample of A. megapotamica.

If you read Pilger's 1930 Latin description of A. schumanniana, it's a dead ringer for A. megapotamica. And it is known Sellow collected at the localities where A. megapotamica grows.

And A. megapotamica was recently declared locally extinct in Rio Grande do Sul (Decreto Estadual RS 52.109/Dez 2014).2A02:A45D:25BD:1:3172:5E10:AFED:9EF9 (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I had already made a start on Arjona megapotamica. I agree that they are very likely synonyms, but we can only report what acceptable sources say, and certainly not say that the descriptions are the same unless a source does. It's already a little problematic to have one article. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

They may be doing a upgrade of their systems as the CNC Flora portal is also down. The Reflora API webservice is also failing.

Another source for A. schumanniana being a synonym of A. megapotamica is World Plants (the deeplink redirect in Firefox, but was OK in Chrome). —  Jts1882 | talk  13:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I can manage to get a link to a fern genus from www.worldplants.de that works in all the browsers I've tried, but I've never managed to get one to either a genus list or a species in the world plants part. Certainly the one you gave fails in Safari under iOS and MacOS and in Firefox under MacOS. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Update Just received an e-mail to say that PoWO will follow Flora del Conosur at its next update. This source is actually mentioned in the entry for Arjona megapotamica, so the acceptance of A. schumanniana seems to have been an anomaly. (I find Rafaël Govaerts very ready to respond to queries.)

So when this happens the articles can be fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice! Yes, an anomaly. I don't really see how following an apparently better source is problematic, but if PoWO is going to follow that apparently better source I'll just shut up now. Yeah, I noticed you wrote up A. megapotamica while I was typing the above. I found a third url for the Flora do Brasil page and it seems to work for me, so I've added some stuff from that to the article. 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:3172:5E10:AFED:9EF9 (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't really see how following an apparently better source is problematic – see WP:NPOV: we mustn't pick and choose sources according to their content. If PoWO maintained its acceptance of A. schumanniana, we would have to give that due weight, since PoWO clearly meets the requirements for being a reliable source. (But only due weight, as we do with its position on fern taxonomy, for example, where we use PPG as the organizing system but acknowledge PoWO's approach). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Mweh, we could argue about this forever. I'm just leery of not verifying stuff for myself instead of relying on the word of some database.86.88.48.93 (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Both Caprifoliaceae and Valerianaceae claim Valerianella, and the species box places Valerianella in Caprifoliaceae, while Stace 4 places it in Valerianaceae. What is the current status of the valerians for WP purposes? Plantsurfer 11:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, given that we agreed to use APG IV, the article Valerianaceae is correct to describe this in the categories as "historically recognized". It should say "the genera ... were" on this basis. APweb agrees in sinking Valerianaceae into Caprifoliaceae. Stace has long argued for accepting paraphyletic taxa; he only accepted sinking Lemnaceae into Araceae in Stace 4 as far as I remember, long after others had done this. So I assume he's the odd one out. Anyway, we should keep to APG IV. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

{{Clade streptophyte}} has no transclusions. It was created back in 2011. I would typically nominate it for deletion, but I know that you are an active editor in this area. If you don't need it, can you please tag it with {{db-g7}} to have it deleted? You could also move it to your user space or transclude it in an article if you want it to stay around. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: it can definitely be deleted. It's out of date now which is partly why it's unused. (I'm unhappy about what is used instead, e.g. the cladogram at Streptophyta#Phylogeny, which is an original synthesis of different sources, but this seems to be what Jmv2009 favours here and elsewhere, so I rarely edit such articles now.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Just tidying up unused templates, of which there are a few thousand. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, and I noticed something else while verifying this: the authority attribution is simply incorrect at IPNI, see publication. In the last part of the intro Decaisne clearly states the species descriptions are those of Jacques Bernard Hombron, where stated as so. The correct attribution should simply be 'Hombr.'. Funny spelling: Arjoona! 86.88.48.93 (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

What part of the French text do you interpret as meaning that the descriptions are entirely those of Hombron rather than based on them? I agree that it seems wrong to include "Jacquinot", but I think that it's still "ex Decne." rather than "in Decne." though. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Ha, you are right. I just skimmed it, sorry, shouldn't have written "clearly" - now I look stupid. Still, Jacquinot should go. 86.88.48.93 (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I know the people at IPNI are off for the holidays now, but I'll make a note to query this later. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Ehhh, the next plant I started looking at also has a slightly wrong authority attribution: Schoepfia arenaria. It should be 'Britton ex Urb.', see here: the species description (nov. sp.) and everything Olacaceae was written by Urban, I have no idea why he attributes the name to Britton ... He identified the same samples as S. arborescens two years earlier, perhaps Britton pointed out he was wrong in personal correspondence or something. Either way, it's not correct in the IPNI. Perhaps you could add this name to your correspondence with them, while you're at it? 86.88.48.93 (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that here it's ascribed to "Britton apud Urban". So should it be "in" rather than "ex", and so ignorable? On p.180 of Urban's account he has just "Britton". It doesn't seem to me a clearcut case of "ex", but the "in" / "ex" distinction is tricky sometimes. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Odd that it states that, but the authorship of the work is still Urban, no? The title page states he wrote the Olacaceae part, as it does in the part on Schoepfia. It seems odd that Britton would have sent the description to Urban so he could publish it in his work with so little mention of Britton otherwise, more likely Urban simply attributed the name to him... as nothing is stated to either effect, can Britton really be seen as author of the description? Isn't the latter a similar situation to that above? If the former view in Just's Botanischer Jahresbericht is correct I suppose the attribution would be correct, but I see no evidence Britton was the author of anything more than the bare name. I would bet that if I found the NYBG isolectotype sheet it would have Britton writing "Schoepfia arenaria" on it.

I agree with you, but the question is whether the evidence is clear enough. I will certainly enquire, but experience suggests that IPNI editors are reluctant to add "ex ..." unless the text makes it clear that the name alone came from someone else, and here it doesn't. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

While we are at it, the title page of this book has as part of the title "Botanique par MM Hombron et Jacquinot", and then in handwriting next to that line: "No! They wrote the Zoologié!", which then appears to have been crossed out. To me the title appears to say that they were the official designated botanists of the expedition, not the authors of this book. Either way, in the description and introduction only Hombron is mentioned, so all that is moot, but I think a (mis)reading of the title page appears to have been applied in the Index Kewensis to the authorship of this name (and likely others from this work). 86.88.48.93 (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be accepted that IK was far from error-free; e.g. it quite often treated a mention of a name as if it were authored there. Taxonomic Literature here is clear that the author of 5(2) is Urban and doesn't mention Hombron or Jacquinot as authors of any of the parts. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hiya, two more names with incorrect author attributions for that e-mail. In this case both PoWO & IPNI have it wrong, but PoWO has it worse than IPNI. Schoepfia flexuosa has as basionym Haenkea flexuosa, ergo (Ruiz & Pav.) Roem. & Schult.

Similarly, Schoepfia arborescens has as basionym Codonium arborescens, ergo (Vahl) Roem. & Schult. Was beginning to wonder about the name S. schreberi as well due to Roem. & Schult.'s attribution to Lam., but that one is good. Happy New Year. 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:BD64:64BF:FF13:CBA1 (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy/italics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 07:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, do you know if the following unused templates are needed?

• Template:Taxobox/error
• Template:Taxobox/old
• Template:Taxobox/sandbox/species
• Template:Taxobox/taxonomy/deep
• Template:Taxobox/taxonomy/shallow/1
• Template:Taxobox/taxonomy check

Other than the last one none are categorized. Gonnym (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I'm pretty sure that Template:Taxobox/old, Template:Taxobox/sandbox/species, Template:Taxobox/taxonomy/deep, Template:Taxobox/taxonomy/shallow/1 and Template:Taxobox/taxonomy check aren't needed.

It's possible that Template:Taxobox/error could be used if a particular kind of taxobox error occurred, but I doubt it.

Peter coxhead (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Taxobox/old has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Peter,

The talk page of this page popped up on the broken redirect list so I deleted. When I looked at the template page, it has a message saying it was "under construction" but that message is from 5 years ago. Do you still plan on working on this or would you like to tag it for deletion? Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Fastily deleted Template:Taxon findall yesterday, but not the corresponding doc page, which I assumed would be done as well. Now tagged. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that one taxobox. It seems that Taxoboxalyzer does not remove the subgenus. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Scorpions13256: I guess part of the problem is that it's not just a case of converting |subgenus= to |parent= in a {{Speciesbox}}, as there also has to be a taxonomy template for the subgenus for the taxobox to work. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Peter Coxhead, I have been looking at the article on Solanum nigrum. A publication by Peter Poczai & Jaakko Hyvönen (2011) titled On the origin of Solanum nigrum: Can networks help? in Molecular Biology Reports 38(2):1171-85 gives evidence that S. nigrum is a hexaploid parented by the diploid S. americanum and the tetraploid S. villosum, the latter being the result of a full genome duplication of the same S. americanum. Is there any way to graphically represent such a relation in a cladogram? Thanks for your answer. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dwergenpaartje: Hybidization can't be shown in a cladogram (e.g. drawn by {{clade}}) because the crosslink between the parents makes the diagram a network not a tree. You'd have to draw the diagram by hand. (The prevalence of polyploidy and hybridization in plants is an issue that in my view isn't sufficiently taken into account in many phylogenetic studies. Cladistics was developed for animals!) Peter coxhead (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dwergenpaartje: the only way I can see to represent the relationships of three species in question is to use something like the quickly drawn diagram here. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

That is great, thank you again. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The reason I added in "Life can also be considered as a classification of every living thing on earth (and possibly the universe)." was because I saw the taxobox on the right, classifying life, so naturally I assumed that adding said statement was factual due to the presence of the taxobox. In addition, I put the word "possibly", since it's not absolutely confirmed. Firekong1 (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Firekong1: sure, I understand. However, calling life a "classification" doesn't seem right to me. The taxobox for Lion has "Animalia" at the top. Is Animalia a "classification"? No, it's a group of organisms used in a classification (i.e. a taxon). The classification, as far as I understand it anyway, is the hierarchy of groups/taxa, not any one of them. So in the sense of the taxobox at Life, life is the top level group to which all living organisms belong. But of course if there are sources that say that life is a "classification", it can be added. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I get what you mean. Thank you for understanding. I just hope you know that I was coming from a scientific angle, and not trying to vandalize the article. I also assumed that life was a classification given that it has a taxobox. And hopefully, we can re-add that little tidbit in the future when we find aforementioned articles. Firekong1 (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Firekong1: the issue for me remains saying that life is a classification. Taxoboxes show the classification of the taxa they contain. Life is treated as the top level of such classifications, but is not the classification itself. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I simply misunderstood. But we should add that life is the ultimate group in which everything is classified, so as not to confuse users similar to how I was confused back then, since life in the article was only described as a characteristic/quality rather than as an indirect semi-grouping. That's my issue. I hope you understand what I mean and where I'm coming from. Firekong1 (talk)

@Firekong1: oh, yes, I understand. What I'm not sure of is whether this is just a Wikipedia fix for taxoboxes – the classification hierarchy has to have one or more final top points, and "Life" is used as one of them. However, it is never displayed in any taxobox except for the one at Life even though it's the ultimate parent – look at Template:Taxonomy/Eukaryota, for example. I'd like to see a source that treats "life" as a taxon or indeed any kind of group. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, see Template:Taxonomy/Virus, where again "Life" is given as the parent, even though whether viruses are alive is disputed but generally not accepted. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Pan-biota and biota are used by the phylocode as total and crown group for all "living" biological entities. That could be better for the life taxobox, as life has a broad meaning than defining a group or taxon. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jts1882: there's some discussion of the life/biota issue in the archives of Talk:Life. Of course, both raise the issue of whether non-cellular entities should be included. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I see. I believe only living cellular entities should be included as life, since they are the most basic form of life. Therefore, most can reasonably assume that it forms the grouping of life. Firekong1 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Unused taxobox templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 17:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the revert of my edit with a link to the style guide. That was quite helpful. I almost never edit Wikipedia, so I am wary of making those kinds of mistakes via edits with good intention but a dose of ignorance getting in the way. JabberWokky (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@JabberWokky: I appreciate your leaving me a message. I've been editing here a while now, and remember that it took me quite some time to un-learn style habits which I was used to. I still find that section headings in sentence case (e.g. "Nutritional value") rather than title case (e.g. "Nutritional Value") don't look quite right. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:R from alternative scientific name/plant has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:R from monotypic taxon/aux has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:R to monotypic taxon/aux has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, there is a pretty large group of unused taxonomy templates on this list. Would you mind taking a look to see if these are valid unused templates or ones that should be deleted? Gonnym (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I think my comments at Template talk:Automatic taxobox/Archive 14#Unused taxonomy templates apply. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, another question regarding some Taxonomy templates. Are the following used anywhere or still needed?

• Template:Taxonomy/preload/???
• Template:Taxonomy/preload/????
• Template:Taxonomy/preload/?????

The last two you've marked as not working, while the first is just unused. Template:Taxonomy/preload/? and Template:Taxonomy/preload/?? are marked as transclusionless unlike the ??? one.

• Template:Taxonbar/Property - says it is a helper function for Template:Taxonbar/doc but it isn't used there.
• Template:Taxonbar/exists

Thanks! Gonnym (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gonnym: the chain of template calls starting with edit notices is not always easy to follow, but Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Taxonomy uses Template:Taxonomy preload to select one of the "Template:Taxonomy/preload/.." templates. Its functional content is unchanged since an edit by Smith609 on 3 March 2011. It only selects preload templates up to "../??". It could be extended to select the others, but if it hasn't been since 2011, I assume it won't be, so the three you've listed above can be deleted.

I don't work on the Taxonbar system; ask Tom.Reding who is its chief maintainer. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation! Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gonnym: thanks for finding that, and thanks for the ping, Peter — Template:Taxonbar/Property was a WikiTable helper template long since superseded by Module:Taxonbar/confdoc (April 2018!), so I'll TfD it next chance I get.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

You have left me no choice but to mute you. You have been on WP:DENY for several years now and have consistently refused to communicate why you are behaving in this manner. I am unable to even venture a guess as to why you have recently started escalating even further than usual. I again ask you to simply stop demanding attention on random pages and explain in a centralised discussion what is going on with you. Invasive Spices (talk) 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices: sorry, but I'm completely baffled by your comment. I have no idea what behaviour you are talking about. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Sorry to bother you. My name is Jarro. I am new to editing wikipedia articles and I'm excited to help create articles on many less known plant species.

I set myself a challenge that I feel may have been far too difficult for me. I love Primulas and wanted to try and create pages for many of the lesser known species. I've succeeded in a few, but this specific species seems a lot harder. I probably picked one of the hardest species for me to try and make a page on. It's called Primula Minor. There is almost no information online available. I have referenced a few websites, but it simply isn't enough to make a page from. I do not have access to any other citation sources to complete the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Primula_minor ^ This is my draft so far. It was rejected as I require "an academic publication to verify species name."

I recognise you have access to a lot more scientific journals than I do. I would really appreciate if you could help me flesh out the article so it can be published. Any help I'd be very grateful for! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JarroNevsbaru (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@JarroNevsbaru: Well, the species is accepted by Plants of the World Online (PoWO) here and the scientific name appears in the International Plant Names Index here, so if these are turned into references, which I can do later, there will be no problem with the draft. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@JarroNevsbaru: I've added these refs and done a bit of copy-editing. It's fine now, in my view. I disagree with the reviewer's statement that it needs an academic publication to verify species name if this means a journal paper. We absolutely do not use primary sources to verify species names. The two taxonomic databases I've linked to above are reliable secondary sources. Also the AGS Encyclopedia and Richard's Primula book are reliable secondary sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

See also the online Flora of China, a good source of information about species found in China, although the names it uses are not always up-to-date, and need checking against PoWO, for example. The webpage on Primula minor is here. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much Peter!!!! JarroNevsbaru (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

I have revised and expanded the article on Babiana, a Southern African genus of Iridaceae. Perhaps you could have a look at it. Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 09:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dwergenpaartje: I had a very quick look, and made a few edits. Changing to the section order given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template, which has "Description" before "Taxonomy", does cause a significant issue, in that the first mention of many species is now earlier, so the wikilink should, ideally, be moved up.

I'm not sure it's worth listing so many individual species in the Taxonomy section. It's certainly unusual, in my experience, and perhaps over-detailed for Wikipedia??

Are you using "bobbejaantjie" as a (psuedo)English word? In "The genus is called bobbejaantjie in Afrikaans" it seems clear that "bobbejaantjie" should be placed in a {{lang}} template, but later you have written "bobbejaantjies" – is this an Afrikaans plural?

I don't have time to do more now, but it seems a very detailed article! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Peter, sorry to bother you again. I recently made Babiana hirsuta. Somehow the title and heading of the box do not project as italic text. I know how to force it, but I do not understand why in this case the speciesbox does not create an italic title as default. Could you help? Thanks in advance, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dwergenpaartje:, the reference in |species= is what's breaking the italics. The values in |genus= and |species= (or |taxon=) must match the article title for italicization to work. It functions that way because the most common case where speciesbox parameters wouldn't match the title is when the title is a vernacular name, which shouldn't be italicized. You can fix it by moving the reference to |authority= (or just leave it out, I don't think it's necessary to include this reference in the taxobox). Plantdrew (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I moved it to |authority=, but I agree with Plantdrew that it's not necessary – or even appropriate. You can optionally give a secondary reference for the authority (e.g. IPNI or PoWO). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks guys, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Peter,

Any contribution you can make to the discussion here would be greatly appreciated by me. Alternatively, you might just tell me I'm wrong! Gderrin (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, was just looking at this article. This website has this as a monotypic taxon, whereas PoWO has it in Hemionitis. Also PoWO has Hemionitis as far larger in terms of species than the former website. Just looking for a steer. Was going to move it to the species as monotypic if in Baja but thought I'd check first. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@YorkshireExpat: sorry to be a bit slow in replying – busy outside Wikipedia at present. We don't use PoWO for ferns, because they don't follow the Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group system, and instead take a very "lumped" approach. Look at the article Blechnum, for example. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks for the reply. Enjoy the long weekend! YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pilea peperomioides, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nasturtium.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:Speciesbox/hybrid name has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Peter coxhead. Thank you for deleting the common name Alpine buttercup in Ranunculus acraeus. I propose to insert as common name Cartman's buttercup, since that is the name that is given to the plant R. acraeus in the List of Ranunculus species. Do you think we should find an external source for this common name? Phacelias (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Phacelias: all vernacular names should be sourced, like all other information. There seems to be a convention that English names can be added to species lists without a reference, so long as there is one in the linked article, although I'm not sure that this is in line with policy on sourcing. If there's no source for "Cartman's buttercup", it should not be present either in the list or in the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Goodmorning, You think this webpage might be accepted as a source? The buttercup is described by Heenan but was discovered by Joe Cartman Phacelias (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Phacelias: but it doesn't say that the English name is "Cartman's buttercup", so it's (mild) WP:SYNTH to move from "discovered by Cartman" to "given an English name based on him". I'll remove the name from the list until a source is found that uses this name – otherwise we are in danger of generating a name ourselves. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, thank you. Anyway, it is an Alpine buttercup, but that is not it's common name --Phacelias (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like you're the primary editor for Phryma. The photo used for the Phryma article is not Phryma leptostachya (or Phrymaceae at all). I suspect it's a legume of some kind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:American_Lop-seed_(Phryma_leptostachya)_(5909584841).jpg 98.192.193.83 (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I noticed that you have recently consolidated the articles for Nicolia/Aachenoxylon/Aachenosaurus under Nicolia (if I read you correctly). Just wanted to advise that the sentence "A synonym of Aachenosaurus is Aachenoxylon, which was coined by Dr Maurice Hovelacque in 1889/1890.", together with listing of Aachenoxylon Hovelacque as a synonym of Nicolia, is a slight oversimplification: basically as I understand it, when Smets described Aachenosaurus, according to Hovelacque he included 2 different materials (not sure which would be the type??), one of which (the epidermis?) Hovelacque ascribed to Nicolia, and the other (wood?) Hovelacque concluded was something quite different, to which he then gave the new name Aachenoxylon - see original Hovelacque description here (in French): https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/46050187 ; also an English commentary by Edwards, 1931 here: https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Fossilium_Catalogus_II_Plantae_Pars_17_D/C0xOC0jK7qMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Aachenoxylon&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover

So while Nicolia could have Aachenosaurus (pars) in its synonymy, it should not have Aachenoxylon, which (again in my reading) remains a potentially acceptable genus in botany (distinct from Nicolia). In IRMNG I have made such an adjustment a month or so back, making an executive decision to synonymise Aachenosaurus with Aachenoxylon (since the latter was established as a new name for the former), although I guess one could synonymise it with Nicolia instead if one wished, see https://irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1007889 .

That's about the extent of my researches to date... Index Nominum Genericorum says: "Aachenosaurus G. Smets, Aachenosaurus Multidens Reptile Foss. 20. 1888. T.: A. multidens G. Smets Described as fossil remains of a reptile, but considered to be wood of Nicolia by Hovelacque, Procès-Verbaux Soc. Belge Géol. 3: 505. 1889 (post 22 Dec)." which is slightly incorrect according to my reading above...

I would be interested in your thoughts here.

Best regards - Tony Rees, IRMNG Tony 1212 (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tony 1212: actually, I just left the statement about Aachenoxylon as it was, and would be quite happy for it to be removed or changed. I only edited this page because it was one of the now relatively few plant articles with a manual taxobox, and it was clear that whatever the title of the article should be, it shouldn't be Aachenosaurus. I guess because palaeobotany is a minority pursuit, and there aren't any major taxonomic databases maintained by expert palaeobotanists, in my limited experience there are many confused names. I do appreciate the efforts that IRMNG makes to create a wide coverage. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Peter, are you aware of IFPNI? I haven't used it enough to have an opinion about its quality. I'm not sure if you don't know about it, or are dismissing it due to concerns about data quality. Plantdrew (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Plantdrew and Tony 1212: no, I wasn't aware of IFPNI. I did quite a lot of work on early plants when I first came on Wikipedia. Checking the history of some of them just now (e.g. Adoketophyton), I was amazed to see that this was in 2011 – another sign of age when time seems to pass so quickly! So, my comments above may be out of date, I suspect.

(The origin of these particular edits is that I got fed up with seeing "Aachenosaurus" come up near the start of the results in a search for plant articles with manual taxoboxes, and decided to fix it, not realizing the complications involved.)

Peter coxhead (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Peter, you recently edited the article Angiopteris evecta and gave this summary - use World Ferns rather than PoWO for ferns, as per WP:PLANTS policy. I've looked through the pages of WP:PLANTS but I can't see any recommendations for the authority to use. Maybe I've missed it and if so I wonder if I've missed other recommendations of this type. Could you provide a link for me pls?  Junglenut | Talk 09:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The entry in WP:Plant Resources is clearest, where it states that the Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group classification should be followed, that this is not followed by Kew resources, and that World Ferms (formerly the Checklist of Ferns and Lycophytes of the World) should be followed. The taxon template subpage mentions use of PPG Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group a couple of times but doesn't mention that World Ferns is the best resource using the PPG system. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Junglenut: Jts1882 has helpfully answered your question before I was able to (thanks!). Peter coxhead (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both  Junglenut | Talk 20:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Interaccoonale: I've moved the thread to Talk:Incomplete lineage sorting#Fig. 2 because it may be of wider interest and significance. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Coleus barbatus seems to not be the best choice for the name of this plant. See my cites on the talk page of the Coleus barbatus article. I'm not a botanist, I'm a clinical pharmacologist, so perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. Much of the pharmacology literature uses the Coleus forskalaei epithet (or variant spellings). At a minimum, the language in the lead is too strong.sbelknap (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sbelknap: I replied at Talk:Coleus barbatus. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I've seen a few students run into problems like these with plant articles (and tbh, given my background, I care more about plant articles than most topics) but I haven't come across a lot of widespread problems. Could you ping me when you notice problems like this? It's much harder when it's the occasional student in a writing class who decides to write about a plant species, but if it's a student in a botany-focused class it would definitely be a place where I'd want to intervene with the instructor to make sure it didn't happen again.

And I'd be interested in seeing some good examples of cultivation sections. It might help me come up with better feedback for students who run into problems. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ian (Wiki Ed): ah, hadn't realized you are the much more familiar Guettarda! Admittedly it might be rather intimidating, but Telopea speciosissima § Cultivation shows how it's possible to write a long cultivation section without giving directions. I can't find where now, but I recall pointing out to an editor that it's ok to write (with refs) "waratahs flower best in full sun, although they tolerate the dappled shade of eucalypts. Heavy pruning after flowering reinvigorates the plants and promotes more profuse flowering in the next season." but wouldn't be to write "waratahs should be planted in full sun or the dappled shade of eucalypts. They should be heavily pruned after flowering to reinvigorate the plants and promote more profuse flowering in the next season." Peter coxhead (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The monotypic plant genus Azilia uses Template:Taxonomy/Azilia (plant). Azilia (spider) uses Template:Taxonomy/Azilia. I think this is confusing. I'm fine with using a disambiguated taxonomy template for a monotypic genus and reserving an undisambiguated template for a polytypic genus when there is no primary topic. I don't think the plant deserves to be a primary topic. I get 4 results for the spider and 2 for the plant (including Wikipedia) in the first page of Google results, and 5 spider/1 plant in the second page of results. Would you move Azilia to Azilia eryngioides? Plantdrew (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: done. The spider is now at Azilia and Template:Taxonomy/Azilia, the plant at Azilia eryngioides (redirect Azilia (plant)) and Template:Taxonomy/Azilia (plant). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEAR! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Eewilson: and to you! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 00:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moops: and to you! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand your removal of my sentence about Bog Asphodel. However, many of the poetic text listed at the end of the article seem much more likely to refer to Bog Asphodel than Asphodelus. References to Resting weary limbs at last on beds of asphodel. and the writings of Milton who is hardly likely to have encountered Asphodelus suggest that the term Asphodel may indeed refer to more than one genus. Now, this is undoubtedly OR on my part but equally I see no learned sources linking many of these attributions to Asphodelus. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

People like Milton would undoubtedly have known the word from classical sources. What plant those sources meant by the word is one question. What was later thought to be the plant meant is another. Both are interesting questions to speculate about, and I'm as happy to join in as anyone, but, as you recognize, here we need sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

John Raven (2000), Plants and Plant Lore in Ancient Greece is an interesting read – he was both a classicist and something of a botanist – but unfortunately he doesn't appear to cover "asphodel". Peter coxhead (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

For the Faboideae genera I've converted to automatic taxoboxes, I haven't been using |display_parents=. Faboideae itself is set to always display. There are 1-3 recently recovered clades (in the genera I've worked on) between tribe and subfamily, and most of these clades have articles, but I didn't think they were worth displaying in genus articles (I did use |display_parents= to display all the clades between tribe and subfamily in articles for tribes (or clades equivalent to tribes)). Part of the reason I stopped working on automatic taxoboxes for Faboideae is that remaining genera/tribes are getting well beyond 3 clades between tribe and subfamily and I wasn't sure if I wanted to include all of the clades in tribe taxoboxes (however the bigger reason I stopped was that there isn't a comprehensive recent source placing genera to tribes; Legumes of the World (2005) is probably the best comprehensive source (where there isn't a recent phylogeny for a particular tribe), but some of the tribes there are acknowledged to be paraphyletic.

So, parent clades for Wisterieae (as shown in the cladogram at Faboideae) are Inverted repeat-lacking clade, Hologalegina, Non-protein amino acid-accumulating clade, Old World clade, Meso-Papilionoideae, and then Faboideae. Old World clade isn't linked from anywhere and isn't much different from the NPAAA clade; I'm comfortable leaving that one out of the taxonomy template hierarchy. All the rest have articles (except Hologalegina, but that does have a taxonomy template). It seems rather excessive to potentially display 4 clades between Wisterieae and Faboideae in a genus article such as Wisteria.

I don't see any good reason why the taxonomy template for Hologalegina should have Faboideae as a parent rather than the NPAAA clade. Would it be better to just have Faboideae as the parent for all the tribes and omit the intermediate clades from the taxonomy template hierarchy? Plantdrew (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: as you've noticed, I've been working on Wisterieae and its subordinate taxa. As part of this, I've read quite a few of the more recent papers on Faboideae phylogeny. It's well acknowledged that the boundaries of genera, let alone tribes, remain uncertain, with significant numbers of genera likely not to be monophyletic. One example is shown in the cladograms at Callerya bonatiana; the authors of the study established the new genus Villosocallerya, but this isn't in IPNI or PoWO. (My purely personal and non-expert view is that there are too many monospecific and very small genera, some established by Soviet-era Russian botanists; some merging may well be needed.)

I certainly wouldn't want to display any of the clades between tribe and subfamily in genus article taxoboxes. So given the existing taxonomy templates, it would be better to remove |display_parents= at Wisteria, for example. However, the Inverted repeat-lacking clade is important in at least one case: moving genera from Millettieae to Wisterieae and thus broadening the latter's circumscription was partly due to the presence of the inverted repeat in the former, as the Taxonomy section says. So I would want the Inverted repeat-lacking clade to be shown in the Wisterieae taxobox. But this could be done by using |parent=Inverted repeat-lacking clade here as a special case, and omitting the intermediate clades in all the tribe taxonomy templates, as you suggest. I think this is probably better, given the general level of confusion and uncertainty. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I've been through the genera of Wisterieae, reducing the parents shown to tribe and subfamily. Definitely better; if readers want to follow up the complex taxonomy, they can work up from the tribe article. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Peter,

I appreciate all of the work you do here but please do not empty categories "out of process" so that they are tagged for speedy deletion, CSD C1. If you believe a category should be deleted, renamed or merged, please nominate it at WP:CFD and go through that process, especially for categories that are not newly created. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: sorry, this category should not be tagged for speedy deletion; I should have added {{Possibly empty category}}.

Explanation WP:PLANTS agreed that the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions (WGSRPD) would be used for plant distributions. Unfortunately, the WGSRPD uses some names for geographical regions in a potentially confusing way. "Assam" is one example. The definition used by the WGSRPD is shown at Category:Flora of Assam (region). The modern state of Assam is much smaller. Major taxonomic databases, such as Plants of the World Online (PoWO), use the WGSRPD names, so editors not familiar with the system are tempted to use incorrect categories. To pick just one example at random, the distribution in PoWO for Allium fasciculatum says "Assam", but it doesn't mean the state, but the WGSRPD unit – as the PoWO map clarifies if studied carefully. I very much doubt whether there are any reliable sources that say that a particular plant occurs only in the modern state of Assam, which is the only circumstance in which Category:Flora of Assam might be used. Possibly a category redirect might be better?

(The same PoWO entry says "China" which also causes problems, because the WGSRPD definition of "China" which PoWO uses excludes Tibet and Hainan as well as Taiwan, which upsets many Chinese editors.)

With hindsight, I think whenever the WGSRPD differs from the usual geographical definition, something like "(WGSRPD)" should have been used consistently to clarify, but we are where we are. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

We have quite a physical displacement from the rest of the zoo/circus of the planet - but we do have a good online resource - glad to be of help, at least you are not clutching at straws of the google books diversion :( - there are even many books still in print in oz... JarrahTree 12:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I have many plant/botany books on the shelf behind me as I type, but some editors then complain that they can't find the reference online... Peter coxhead (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)