Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants
Main page | Talk | Taxon template | Botanist template | Resources | Events | Requests | New articles | Index |
WikiProject Plants was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 17 December 2007. |
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Translating Latin, and using JSTOR:Global Plants description
[edit]Good day everyone!
In an article (Bidens acuticaulis) that I am drafting, one of the sources (v.59 (1915) - Botanical gazette - Biodiversity Heritage Library) I am considering using as a reference has the species description entirely in Latin. For people who don't know any Latin, can the text from an online translator (such as Google Translate) be used? If not, is there a way for someone (who doesn't know Latin) to reliably translate botanical Latin into English?
And on an unrelated note, can the species descriptions at JSTOR:Global Plants be cited as a reliable source in a Wikipedia Article? Cayuga3 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Modern Latin exists in a number of forms, of which Botanical Latin is one. A pitfall to watch out for is words that have a specialised meaning in Botanical Latin; Google Translate might use the more widespread sense instead, though nowadays it tends to pick the right one for the context. It may also be spooked by OCR errors in the text. In this instance Google Translate does a pretty good job - probably better than I could do with the assistance of no more than a dictionary. remote is botanical jargon, but its meaning in this passage is unclear, and I'd want to look at other descriptions to clarify. I'd use bracts or phyllaries rather than scales; I was unclear what paleae denotes in this context - spikelet indicates that they are receptacular bracts (which is what I suspected, and which I've seen called scales in other descriptions of composites). bi-aristed would normally be biaristose, but "with two awns" would be clearer. diaphanous would normally be scarious or membranous (and there's not enough context to tell which was intended). petiole attached 1-4 cm. long looks wrong, especially as the petiole length is given later; I guess that this should be "1-4cm long including petiole". (This review should give you some idea of the quality of the translation).
- If you haven't already looked at WP:COPYVIO (not relevant in this instance) and WP:PLAGIARISM you should probably do so - I believe that tight translations fall within the scope of plagiarism. That plant descriptions are rather stereotyped is a problem, as it makes it hard to rewrite in your own words. Outside Wikipedia I've written descriptions from photographs/drawings/specimens and then supplemented that with other descriptions, but within Wikipedia that is contrary to WP:NOR.
- In this instance, POWO has English language descriptions from FTEA. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Google Translate generally does okay with Latin (I often use it with minimal issues), but as Lavateraguy says, botanical Latin is a bit special and sometimes confuses the translator. I would suggest using Google Translate while checking over the original text with a botanical Latin glossary - the Missouri Botanic Garden has one here, though it is not quite finished, so you may have to resort to googling some words. Honestly, botanical Latin is fairly intuitive and you will start to develop an understanding as you read more of it. If there's any particular words or phrases you're unsure about, feel free to ask about it here! And, as Lavateraguy says, try to avoid just directly translating the Latin description - I recommend writing descriptions in full sentences (eg. "The petals measure approximately 5mm by 5mm and are white with pink dots" as opposed to "petals white with pink dots, ca. 5mm x 5mm") at the very least.
- When it comes to your question about JSTOR, yes, I would say JSTOR entries are generally reliable, but check the original source to be sure. I would suggest citing the original text that JSTOR draws from and linking to the JSTOR entry in your citation with the |url and |via parameters in Template:Cite book or Template:Cite journal. Aggregators like JSTOR are extremely useful, but the original authors of the text should be credited - the JSTOR citations can be a little odd, so you may need to do a little research to get all the information for a citation. For example, this entry draws from "Flora of Tropical East Africa, Part Part 3, page 547, (2005) Author: H. Beentje, C. Jeffrey & D.J.N. Hind", which you could cite as:
- Beentje, H.; Jeffrey, C.; Hind, D.J.N. (2005). Compositae (Part 3). Flora of Tropical East Africa. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. p. 547. ISBN 9781842461068 – via JSTOR.
- Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Cayuga3, @Ethmostigmus, @Lavateraguy - coming a bit late to this perhaps, but one other caution about using google translate: google only recognises American as acceptable "English". If the page in which the translation is being used is in UK, or any other form of English, by reason of MOS:TIES or MOS:RETAIN, remember to change google's American imperialism into the relevant English spellings - MPF (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Need help with banana tree
[edit]Template:Did you know nominations/Madagascar banana Chidgk1 (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Camphora officinarum#Requested move 27 December 2024
[edit]There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Camphora officinarum#Requested move 27 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Change to Infraspeciesbox template
[edit]I'm not sure we should have the article Ulmus × hollandica var. insularum – the variety is not accepted by PoWO, and the material could easily be moved to Ulmus × hollandica. However, given that it does exist, and previously had a manual taxobox because {{Infraspeciesbox}} wouldn't handle nothospecies, I have updated the template so that it now works for such cases. All the testcases at Template:Infraspeciesbox/testcases seem ok, but please revert my change if any problems turn up elsewhere. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I guessed this taxon is recognised by Sell & Murrell, as Ulmus insularum.
- User Ptelea wrote a lot of pages on Ulmus species, varieties and cultivars. My position is that the cultivars, etc., wouldn't normally be considered notable, but since the work has been done it might as well be kept. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- IPNI has an entry for Ulmus insularum with Ulmus × hollandica var. insularum as the basionym, so this could be added to the article. PoWO treats it as a nothospecies, with Ulmus × insularum as a synonym of Ulmus × hollandica. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unfortunately for many of the pages written by Ptelea, they are all directly in the line of stubby "catalogue" articles that were discussed as NOT fulfilling notability criteria in the WP:NSPECIES promotion last fall. They are, by majority, based on seed catalogue entries and some herbarium collection numbers with no outside indications as to notability. I feel they should be assessed and up-merged or otherwise dealt with if they lack the secondary sourcing to meet notability.--Kevmin § 17:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- In general, I agree, particularly those on less well known cultivars, although I now think that Ulmus × hollandica var. insularum is somewhat more notable than I first thought. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Another AI LLM site to watch out for
[edit]I was checking the new article for Acanthus eminens and it cited Selina Wamucii, along with propagate.one. Propagate.one looks to be the same sort of LLM generated garbage as Selina Wamucii. I haven't found anything there yet that I recognize as being flat out wrong, but they are offering advice on propagating plants that nobody is actually propagating, and I would expect a human writing about Cnidoscolus albomaculatus would warn about stinging hairs. Plantdrew (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- They describe propagation of Malva x clementii (shrubby lavatera) by seed, and describe the fruits as "small round balls". The actual fruits are flattened schizocarps. The plants (with the exception of 'Bredon Springs') produce very little seed (1 seed per 10 fruits might be generous), and the seed is not always viable. They are sufficiently fertile that backcrosses with Malva thuringiaca exist (which are also Malva x clementii), and these strike me as not being easy to propagate by cuttings (unlike the F1 hybrids, which are quite easy).
- However I suspect that the site is generated programmatically, but not using an LLM. The text seems rather stereotyped and generic. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Plantdrew for flagging this, agree that it doesn't look like a reliable source. There's not much information in the "about us" section. It vaguely states "we're building the internet's most comprehensive database dedicated to plant propagation" but without any mention about where this information is being gathered from or even author information. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Douglas fir –> Douglas-fir
[edit]There's a discussion at Douglas fir about renaming that article to Douglas-fir. Feel free to comment! UpdateNerd (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Pedanius Dioscorides#Requested move 20 January 2025
[edit]There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pedanius Dioscorides#Requested move 20 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Bodhi Tree#Requested move 11 January 2025
[edit]There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bodhi Tree#Requested move 11 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 18:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Searching external links
[edit]Is there a way to search the mainspace for the target of an external link? I was able to find six instances of link spam to an AI content farm today, but only because so far they seem to always use a similar phrase at the end of their link spam. I'm wondering if there are more that I'm missing because they used a different wording at other times. I also asked for hortitips.com to be added to the spam blacklist because they're using lots of different IPs to edit and have been doing this for at least a year. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you specifically wanting to search in an external links section? I'm assuming the answer to that is no; if it's AI garbage, it shouldn't be in the article anywhere at all. You can do an insource search to find a particular domain name in the page source code (see Help:Searching#insource:, or check out this example: search for theplantlist (at some point we should replace all links to The Plant List)) Plantdrew (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- (And WCSP.) Peter coxhead (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Not quite what I was wishing for. This particular spammer puts their external links behind the text of the article. So for example [https://www.hortitips.com/2024/04/do-citronella-plants-effectively-repel-mosquitoes.html Cymbopogon winterianus] was one of theirs. So far I keep catching them due to additional phrasing, but I wish there were a way to search the targets of external links added to the mainspace. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- I tested by restoring the spam at Cymbopogon winterianus. It took a couple minutes to show up, but an insource search for hortitips caught it. Plantdrew (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was going to say the same as Plantdrew. If you have something specific ask here. The searches can be refined. — Jts1882 | talk 20:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
How to write about subspecies?
[edit]I have recently written articles about Mammillaria prolifera and Mammillaria albilanata. Each is divided into multiple subspecies, which of course differ in appearance and distribution. I am at a loss on how to structure the articles.
The sources I have write about each subspecies separately: subsp. A (description, range, habitat), subsp. B (description, range, habitat), etc. But if I were to structure the article like that, the obvious question would be: why not have separate articles about each subspecies? On the other hand, structuring the article as I do now, with a paragraph for each subspecies in general Description and Distribution & habitat sections, seems rather unnatural, forced even.
What is the community standard or guideline? Surtsicna (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's an agreement that all accepted species are de jure notable. WP:PLANTS has "This project's scope also includes notable artificial hybrids and cultivars, botanists and botany-related articles", which implies that there are non-notable artificial hybrids, cultivars, etc. WP:PLANTS seems to be silent on the status of subspecies, varieties, subvarieties, forms and subforms. My personal view is that the majority of infraspecific taxa should be covered in species articles, but that there are exceptions subjects as the various Brassica oleracea varieties.
- Adding a few words to WP:PLANTS on the subject seems a reasonable step.
- With regards to the species you mention, POWO (the current default source for opinions on accepted taxa) doesn't recognise the subspecies of Mammillaria albilanata, listing them as synonyms of the species, rather than as "Accepted Infraspecifics". In the case of Mammillaria prolifera POWO recognises subsp. haitiensis as well as the other three. As your text describes the 3 subspecies as (2x, 4x, 6x) cytotypes I would lean towards recognising them as species, but it's not on me, or Wikipedia editors in general, to second guess specialist botanists (see WP:NOR). Lavateraguy (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- I rather dislike our reliance on tertiary sources such as POWO. In this instance, they say they follow Hernández & Gómez-Hinostrosa in synonymising Hunt's subspecies names with the species name, but these authors in the cited reference actually recognize all of Hunt's subspecies. I have noticed similar problems at the IUCN website, where the cited work sometimes does not mention the species at all.
- And so I remain uncertain on how to structure the articles about species with subspecies. Surtsicna (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- From what I've been able to see in Hernández & Gómez-Hinostrosa as I've found it online (which is just 32 out of 160+ pages on both ResearchGate and Opuntia Web), they treat M. albilanata subsp. oaxacana as a synonym. That's in the only available page of their section "Taxonomic Index and list of synonyms"; the main account of the species isn't in the pages I've been able to see. But POWO does get some things wrongs. Plantdrew (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are right. I missed the legend. Surtsicna (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- From what I've been able to see in Hernández & Gómez-Hinostrosa as I've found it online (which is just 32 out of 160+ pages on both ResearchGate and Opuntia Web), they treat M. albilanata subsp. oaxacana as a synonym. That's in the only available page of their section "Taxonomic Index and list of synonyms"; the main account of the species isn't in the pages I've been able to see. But POWO does get some things wrongs. Plantdrew (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Jojoba derivative chemicals
[edit]I noticed that there are several articles on Jojoba-derived chemicals, mostly stubs. I categorised them together at Category:Components and derivatives of jojoba. If someone can, please expand them, or if some of them are similar topics merge them. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Botanical garden
[edit]Botanical garden 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) 16:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Pollination section from a reverted edit
[edit]Today someone added a section about pollination to Avicennia schaueriana, in Portuguese. The edit was reverted and a warning template left on the contributor's page about it "not being in good enough English to be useful" and suggesting they'd be better off contributing to Portuguese Wikipedia.
However, on inspection, the added text turned out to consist of
- an introductory sentence in Portuguese saying, according to Google Translate, The following organisms play a role in pollination:
- a list of species (in Latin, not Portuguese, apart from grouping them into wasps, bees, flies, moths and butterflies)
- an open-access article citation given in Portuguese, but with an English version also available at the same URL.
I've copied the text to the talk page at Talk:Avicennia schaueriana#Text added in Portuguese.
I don't know either botany or Portuguese, so I don't think I'm qualified to decide whether to add an English version to the article. Please could someone better qualified take a look? At first sight, it seems very much like a useful contribution to a very short article.
(It's a little annoying that more time was spent on discussing what warning to give the contributor for their one and only edit rather than on finding out what they'd added, but there you go.) Musiconeologist (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Disentangling Glycosmis cochinchinensis from Buchanania lanzan
[edit]POWO apparently screwed something up. I'll need to visit the library tomorrow to see if I can figure out how that happened. Buchanania lanzan was moved to Buchanania cochinchinensis per POWO in 2022. POWO now accepts B. cochinchinensis as Glycosmis cochinchinensis and accepts B. lanzan. B. lanzan is a culturally important species in India, and most of the material in the G. cochinchinensis apparently pertains to B. lanzan (the citations for the India Biodiversity Portal and Malakar et al. at G. cochinchinensis apparently pertain to B. lanzan). Buchanania is in Anacardiaceae, Glycosmis is in Rutaceae, and the basionym for cochinchinensis is a genus in Fabaceae (I suspect the problem stems from a homonymous Buchanania somewhere). Anybody want to try to disentangle these species? Plantdrew (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Buchanania Spreng. (1800) is in Anacardiaceae; Buchanania lanzan Spreng. is presumably the type, as that seems to be only species that he published at the time. Buchanania Sm. (1805) is in Lamiaceae, and seems not to be relevant.
- Toluifera L. is in Fabaceae and is a nom. rej. - IPNI says "nom. rej. vs. Myroxylon L.f. 1782 (nom. cons.)". Toluifera Lour. is in Rutaceae; Toluifera cochinchinensis is presumably the type. Toluifera Lour. would have priority over Glycosmis Corrêa; presumably it is nom. illeg. (later homonym).
- There's some discussion at eFlora of India, but I don't think it reaches a resolution. Marselein Rusario Almeida published the combination Buchanania cochinchinensis in a Flora of Maharashtra in 1996. He was presumably covering Buchanania lanzan, but believed Toluifera cochinchinensis (which would have priority) to be conspecific. POWO presumably took their earlier opinion directly or indirectly from his work.
- The combination Buchanania cochinchinensis is in active use among Indian botanists (see Google Scholar). Google Scholar suggests that a paper in Botany Letters may shed light, but it's paywalled, and doesn't seem to be available in Wikipedia Library. Some history of Glycosmis is described at in an old paper at JSTOR
- Summary: there are two different interpretations of the identity of Toluifera cochinchinensis, and I haven't found a clear resolution. (ICNafp Article 55.1 means that while Toluifera is illegitimate, T. cochinchinensis is legitimate, and the epithet is available for use.) Lavateraguy (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Botany Letters paper is available through Wikipedia Library here. Had to use the advanced search to get a result. — Jts1882 | talk 13:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Turns out that it doesn't help - it merely reports the discrepancy - "We followed the taxonomy used in the Plants of the World Online (2023) except for two specimens: Chara vulgaris L. which is an alga and Buchanania cochinchinensis (Lour.) M.R.Almeida (Anacardiaceae) which is listed as a synonym of Glycosmis cochinchinensis (Lour.) Pierre ex Engl. (Rutaceae) in POWO but which is Anacardiaceae and is referred to using this name Buchanania cochinchinensis in India." Lavateraguy (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- The supplemental material has "1. Buchanania cochinchinensis (Lour.) M.R. Almeida (Anacardiaceae)
- Raman (2018) says that this might be Lawsonia inermis (Lythraceae). However, it is clearly Anacardiaceae and is a
- Buchanania with pentamerous flowers and simple leaves. Two species are listed in Matthew (1983), namely B. axillaris and B. lanzan. The latter is now considered a synonym of B. cochinchinensis. The broadly ovate leaves that are pubescent below and more than 10 cm across place it in B.cochinchinensis. Our determination does not agree with the POWO (2023) as it treats B. cochinchinensis = Glycosmis cochinchinensis (Lour). Pierre ex Engl. (Rutaceae) and B. cochinchinenis is clearly an Anacardiaceae and is treated as such in India."
- - Lavateraguy (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Turns out that it doesn't help - it merely reports the discrepancy - "We followed the taxonomy used in the Plants of the World Online (2023) except for two specimens: Chara vulgaris L. which is an alga and Buchanania cochinchinensis (Lour.) M.R.Almeida (Anacardiaceae) which is listed as a synonym of Glycosmis cochinchinensis (Lour.) Pierre ex Engl. (Rutaceae) in POWO but which is Anacardiaceae and is referred to using this name Buchanania cochinchinensis in India." Lavateraguy (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Botany Letters paper is available through Wikipedia Library here. Had to use the advanced search to get a result. — Jts1882 | talk 13:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Buchanania lanzan redirects to Glycosmis cochinchinensis, after a recent move. It should be moved back to either Buchanania lanzan or Buchanania cochinchinensis, but we have conflicting sources as to which is the nomenclaturally correct name. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)