Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

WikiProject Plants

 Main page Talk Taxon template Botanist template Resources Events Requests New articles Index 

Agathyrsus

[edit]

Agathyrsus is currrntly an unlabelled {{R from singular}} to Agathyrsi. However, it also appears to be a junior synonym of Cicerbita (Agathyrsus macrophyllus) and possibly also Lactuca (Agathyrsus floridanus, Agathyrsus pulchellus, Agathyrsus sibiricus). Readers who have come across this obsolete genus name won't be helped by finding tremselves looking at a page about an obscure extinct Scythian tribe. Does anyone here feel like sorting out this mess? Regrettably, I lack the stamina.

Other leads include species:Agathyrsus (which includes links to non-English wikis), D.Don, and Category:Taxa named by David Don. (The moth Alcides agathyrsus can be ignored; specific epithets are rarely if ever notable.) Narky Blert (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Agathyrsus needs to be changed from a redirect to a disambiguation page, with the following two items:
  • Agathyrsus, an ancestor of the Ancient people Agathyrsi of the Transylvanian Plateau
  • Agathyrsus D.Don, a taxonomic synonym of the plant genus Cicerbita Wallr.
– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONEOTHER may apply. Narky Blert (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. Could change the redirect to point to Cicerbita and place a hatnote that says "Agathyrsus" redirects here. For the ancestor of Scythian peoples, see Agathyrsi. Or something like that. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Thar would surely be the best immediate solution, and I endorse it. Nevertheless, I still have the feeling that an article might be warranted - a distinguished namegiver, and several species now placed within another genus. Experience tells me to place little or no weight on what other wikis might say without further research. Are Don's papers in Biodiversity Heritage Library? Who reclassified the genus and those species? Narky Blert (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping to avoid archive for a bit until I get to this. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping again. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change completed. @Narky Blert, thank you for bringing this up. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candelabra primula

[edit]

Shall Candelabra primula be moved from this common name to its scientific name Primula sect. Proliferae? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't very many articles on infrageneric taxa, but they are far more often titled by vernacular names than are articles for genera and species.
One consideration is that it's hard to know what readers might search for: vernacular name, scientific name with genus and abbreviated rank (Primula sect. Proliferae), scientific name with genus and unabbreviated rank (Primula section Proliferae), scientific name without genus (sect(ion) Proliferae). Articles on infrageneric taxa that don't use the vernacular name for the title are consistently titled with genus and abbreviated rank, but that seems kind of messy to me and not necessarily what readers are going to search for.
There other consideration is how precisely vernacular names for infrageneric taxa correspond to the scientific taxon. And I am not at all sure that they correspond very well. Rhododendron subsect. Pentanthera redirects to North American azaleas, but the subsection includes a species (Rhododendron luteum) that isn't native to North America (and are there other "azaleas" from North American that aren't in the subsection? I don't know).
Other articles ostensibly about infrageneric taxa with vernacular name titles are: snakebark maple, banyan, tree peony, bristlecone pine, pinyon pine, apricot, blackberry, bush lawyer (plant), rowan, blueberry, cranberry, mayhaw and Louisiana iris. Plantdrew (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sectional names are not unique. (IPNI doesn't have Primula sect. Proliferae, but does have two sections of that name in other genera, plus a subsection and 4 series. Using the section name with the genus is like using a species epithet without the genus.)
As a point of pedantry, Wikipedia now restricts Sorbus to the rowans, with commentary on the former wider circumscription, so rowan no longer represents an infrageneric taxon. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lavateraguy, true, a sectional name wouldn't be identifiable if it were written simply as "sect. Proliferae", but this is Primula sect. Proliferae, including the genus, and the Automatic taxobox in the article Candelabra primula has the parameter |taxon= set to Primula sect. Proliferae.
Plantdrew, I see this as an instance of a plant article having as its name the vernacular, and usually we don't do that. I came across this article and it occured to me that we should apply our standard protocol of naming taxa articles to this one, with a redirect from the common name "Candelabra primula" to "Primula sect. Proliferae". – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plantdrew, that Rowan article needs some cleanup! First thing I see is that the taxobox does not give the scientific name of the subgenus as the taxon but the entire genus of Sorbus. That simply looks like an easily-fixable error. Everything else could work around that. I haven't read (or even skimmed) that article, but someone missed something. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to the elders on this one. I don't know the taxon nor what would be best here. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depreciating Selina Wamucii as a source

[edit]

Is it time to add Selina Wamucii plants to the list of deprecated sources because new editors are starting to regularly cite it? The last time this was discussed back in March 2024 it was more of a theoretical problem. In the last week I have removed three citations by two different editors and I'm wondering if other editors have started to see this.

Some examples of obviously erroneous information:

  • Elodea bifoliata "small, aquatic plant native to Southeast Asia" later on the same page it lists the native range as "North America". It also says that it can be found in "North America, Europe, and Asia," but POWO does not list it as living outside N. America.
  • Penstemon albomarginatus "native to western North America, from British Columbia to California, and grows in moist meadows and open woods." Actually a desert plant confined to the Mojave. Later contradicts itself saying, "drought-tolerant and can thrive in poor soils."
  • Carnegiea gigantea "characterized by its large, barrel-shaped stems and white flowers," then later, "large, yellow flowers with five petals and a yellow center." Correctly states that the saguaro is, "native to the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico," but later says, "native to India, Sri Lanka, and parts of Southeast Asia. It can be found in tropical and subtropical forests, as well as in disturbed areas."

Regardless of how S-W created their database it is stuffed with errors and contradicts itself even on the same page. Because it is unfortunately highly ranked by search engines for less well known plants it is natural for newer editors to mistakenly use it as a source and it is likely there are subtle errors that would not jump out like the glaring ones I have used as examples. There is no bad faith efforts to use S-W, but the edit filter would be a good way to let editors know that it should not be used. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My 2¢:
  1. I didn't know Wikipedia had a list of deprecated sources.
  2. If it's not reliable (or even relevant), we should not be using it.
– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for bringing this up MtBotany. I don't believe we should be using sources with direct commercial links like this (Selina Wamucii is a company that connects farmers to produce procesors/retailers) in the first place - the only website I would trust to provide both information and sell plants is perhaps the Royal Horticultural Society website. I find that information provided by sellers of plants tends to be unreliable, and I find it questionable to provide links to purchasable products on Wikipedia. I would support placing Selina Wamucii on the "caution" list at the very least. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following up so it doesn't get dropped in an archive. Did this get dealt with? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It did not get dealt with. There are only about 50 sources listed at Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Currently_deprecated_sources and it's a bureaucratic process to get them listed there (and the sources that are deprecated have much higher profiles than S-W). I'd support an effort to deprecate it, but so far it's only being used at a scale that I can handle by myself (mostly, thanks MtBotany). I came across a new article today that cited it and removed the content sourced to S-W. I've done a couple searches for S-W since I first brought it up here in March, and it looks like I've found 18 article since then that cited it. Plantdrew (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This warning by Alex Lees on Twitter about AI-generated websites may be of interest. It's about bird sources, but if there are many such sources on different subjects, Wikipedia may have to update its procedures to make it easier to blacklist AI-generated sources. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the current procedure for deprecating sources revolves mostly around sources with political/ideological biases (although a few are considered a problem for being user-generated). Most of the deprecated sources aren't actually black-listed. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_additions may be the appropriate venue for doing something about S-W. There are thousands of black-listed sites. (I wouldn't say that S-W is getting spammed per se, but it looks like there have been a few sites that have been black-listed for being AI generated content). I'll try to get around to bringing it up there later today. Plantdrew (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend taking this to WP:RSN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll post about the subject there. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Carrot

[edit]

Carrot 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) 21:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article Little leaf of brinjal

[edit]

The article Little leaf of brinjal was created in 2015. It appears to be attempting to describe a (possibly significant) disease of Solanum melongena (eggplant). "Brinjal" is a common name for eggplant in some areas of Africa and South Asia. I am suspecting that this could be made a redirect to an existing article for the pathogen that causes the disease that appears to be called "little leaf", "brinjal little leaf", or "little leaf of brinjal" OR that it could be added to the eggplant article. Eggplant § Cultivation and pests, last paragraph, looks suspiciously like it could be referring to the same disease. I have not investigated further. Does anyone have the time to take a look at this? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of Eggplant § Cultivation and pests does not appear to be referring to the same disease. It refers to a phytophagous moth (I wouldn't call it a disease), while little leaf is caused by a bacterium, and transmitted by a leafhopper (true bug). Lavateraguy (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Little leaf of brinjal is associated with several different Phytoplasma groups, but the commonest is Ca. Phytoplasma trifolii. Wikipedia does not appear to have an article for this. But a 2023 paper identifies that causal agent as a new species, distinct from Ph. trifolii; the paper is paywalled and I can't tell whether it gives the agent a binomial name. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2023 paper (and the 2021 one) are available through the Wikipedia Library (Snehi & Raj, 2023). Based on a quick skim,it looks like it is still a Candidatus species.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick scan, they didn't give it a binomial. Also the abstract is misleading - it should be "A phytoplasma associated with brinjal little leaf" rather than "The phytoplasma associated with brinjal little leaf". The text confirms that several different Ca. Phytoplasma species are associated with brinjal little leaf, including Ca. Ph. trifolii and Ca. Ph. asteris. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jts1882 and Lavateraguy for looking at this while I caught some sleep. Thank you Lavateraguy for at least making the article look encyclopedic. That really helps. So what do you folks think? Maybe further study of those sources, including the new ones? Maybe this could (eventually) be referred to in eggplant, and this article could refer and link to the several phytoplasma that cause it and the insects that transmit those phytoplasma? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a paragraph to eggplant thereby deorphaning the article.
On the previous cursory look on the web, the disease is notable and has enough sources to support an article. The article is extendable. The material on control measures in particular could do with some further clean up.
It appears that multiple Phytoplasmas cause particular diseases, and individual phytoplasmas cause multiple diseases (see Phytoplasma solani for example). I think that the diseases are more notable than the species, and references to the various species involved with little leaf of brinjal are liable to remain redlinks. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you for looking into this, Lavateraguy. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newly created category: Lithophytes

[edit]

Just wanted to announce that I've gone ahead and created a category for lithophytes, similar to the existing Category:Epiphytes, as I realised there was only a category for lithophytic orchids and nothing for all the other lithophytic plants. I've already added a handful of articles, but would very much appreciate it if you all could add any other lithophytic plants that you come across in your editing :) Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

It appears that the the USDA has changed its PLANTS database web link without a redirect – again.

This affects citation templates: {{PLANTS}} (aka {{Cite PLANTS}}) (used on over 4,000 pages), {{Cite usda plants}} (used on 88 pages), {{Taxid}} (used on 2 whole article pages), as well as the {{Taxonbar}} when the PLANTS identifier is on a Wikidata record for a taxon (USDA PLANTS ID (P1772) which is set to the identifier for the taxon on that website (e.g., "PHUR" for Phyllanthus urinaria (Q1131974)) (used on I don't want to even think of how many pages).

I thought I'd post this here to let people who use this website know, because it is likely that someone(s) in the Plants project maintains those templates, and posting it here is efficient (for me).

Clicking directly on the identifier value (the "PHUR") from Wikidata also goes to a "bad" page.

The following take you to a page that shows the quote I have given in smaller font, below.

Page not found

We’re sorry, we can’t find the page you're looking for. The site administrator may have removed it, changed its location, or made it otherwise unavailable.

The link built by Cite usda plants and Taxid seems to go into a search that would probably eventually time out.


Once you are on the USDA PLANTS DB website, typing in the scientific name in the search box on the website will then take you to a URL formatted like the following (same species I have been using – Phyllanthus urinaria).

The change from old to new is shown here. A prettier link. 

Old: https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/home/plantProfile?symbol=PHUR
New: https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/plant-profile/PHUR

I didn't run all the tests for all (or more) species.

Who is best suited to make the changes?

On a related note (possibly worthy of a different post and something that, if possible, could be done after the links are changed), it looks like Cite usda plants is a CS2 template based on Citation. PLANTS (and Cite PLANTS) are based on Cite web. Do you think it's possible to combine the two templates (creating a wrapper or redirect out of Cite usda plants) for easier maintenance and allowing the user to just specify the citation style needed (CS1 or CS2)? Is that already built in to the PLANTS template? I think Cite web allows that. And then there's this Taxid template... – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've update the url at {{PLANTS}}, {{Cite usda plants}} and {{Taxid}}. I've changed the URL formatter on Wikidata so {{Taxonbar}} shouldbe fixed (perhaps with a cashing delay). Any other changes needed?  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're amazing! I've been manually searching for any cite web and bare URLs going to any of the invalid links and changing them to use the PLANTS template. I don't think there are any templates other than the ones I have listed. Thank you so much. I will comment here if I find something else. Maybe someone else knows of other places this might crop up. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{PLANTS}} is already a wrapper for {{cite web}} so takes |mode=c2 and other cite web parameters. Are the other templates needed or should they be merged into {{PLANTS}}? With two uses is {{Taxid}} even needed?  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would think both could be done away with and any unique functionality combined with the current PLANTS template. But I'm just one person. Maybe asking the editor(s) who use them. I can track down some usernames if you wish. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The outputs of {{PLANTS}} and {{Cite usda plants}} are very different and neither is close to the format suggested at the Plant Database.
NRCS. "Oenothera arizonica". PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Retrieved 4 November 2024.
NRCS (December 7, 2011), "Oenothera arizonica", PLANTS Database, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
  • The Plant Database suggests:
Natural Resources Conservation Service. PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture. Accessed November 4, 2024, from https://plants.usda.gov.
  • I think something like this would be best for a unified template
"Oenothera arizonica". PLANTS Database. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved 4 November 2024.
The latter is closer to the suggested citation and more similar to other citation templates. {{PLANTS}} is a bit odd within its use of |author=USDA, NRCS and |publisher=National Plant Data Team. Alternatively leave {{PLANTS}} with the corrected URL and add a wrapper for {{Cite usda plants}}. Thoughts?  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I converted most instances of {{Cite usda plants}} to {{PLANTS}} several years ago; I didn't realize they were using different citation styles. {{Cite usda plants}} had less than 10 uses (maybe even as few as 2 or 3) last time I looked at it (which was awhile ago). If I recall correctly the only articles using it when I last looked called it multiple times; I think they were genus articles that called it for each species. It's possible that I replaced it in those articles as well and forgot about it. It looks like MtBotany has been introducing it to more articles recently.
I support Jts1882's suggestion about changing the citation for USDA PLANTS. With only 88 uses, I'd just suggest changing all of the {{Cite usda plants}} over to {{PLANTS}}. And I think {{Taxid}} should just be deleted. I think that template name is misleading; to me it suggests something along the lines of {{Taxonbar}} that supports different IDs for multiple websites, when it really only supports one ID that is shared by two websites. Plantdrew (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few years ago, we changed the output of PLANTS so it looks like it does now, which was consistent with what I remember the USDA wanted then. I noticed last night they have changed it (again). I agree with deleting Taxid, actually would just like to see Cite usda plants deleted as well, and changing the output format of PLANTS as you suggested, Jts1882. I think it is possible that Taxid was created to generate a really short external link section output string, and anything that avoids bare URLs within an article is great. But I think it's something that should be done, if it needs to be done, through PLANTS. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When using {{PLANTS}}, there is code out there that sets the value of |last1=((USDA, NRCS)) (in articles) because for some reason, the template was not working with shortened footnotes, even though |last1= is set to that value. (The double parens were to avoid the error created because of using punctuation in the last name parameter. I found that in the Wiki documentation somewhere.)

So when I would use the code {{Sfnp|USDA, NRCS|2014}} (or Sfn) having defined the reference like this (without setting the |last1= parameter)

{{Cite PLANTS | date = 2014 | id = SYEU | taxon = Symphyotrichum eulae | access-date = 27 October 2022 }}

I would get the cite error sfnp error: no target: CITEREFUSDA,_NRCS2014. It can be replicated. Thus, I had to set |last1=((USDA, NRCS)) even though it was set that way in the template! If you change it to |last1=NRCS, then existing code out there that sets last1 should still work, but in the future, hopefully I won't have to overwrite the value.

Testing {{Sfnp|NRCS|2014}}, {{Sfnp|NRCS|n.d.}}, etc., would be important. The test cases, or some of them, might already be in the test cases subpage of the template. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find ten pages setting |last1=((USDA, NRCS)) with this search. In tests, the {{sfnp}} links still work when I delete the |last1=((USDA, NRCS)) line. Perhaps there was some bug that has been fixed.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange, because I tested it and got the error yesterday right before I made the comment. Hmmm. Anyway, thanks for the search. I'll be able to update them easily to use the uniform value as soon as the {{PLANTS}} template is changed. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jts1882, do you think it's okay to go ahead and update the output of the PLANTS template with the format you suggested? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hike395, I thought our latest discussion here about Template {{PLANTS}} might interest you since you've been playing around with the sandbox. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping! I think |author=USDA, NRCS does not match citation styles in Wikipedia, so was going to propose changing it. The proposal from Jts1882 seems good to me: I can make that change in the sandbox. — hike395 (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hike395, Great! I am a fan of shortened footnotes and made comments in this thread about the problems I have with citation templates and sfn. Did you read those and do you have any thoughts? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In {{PLANTS/sandbox}}, I implemented the format suggested by Jts1882 (taken from Module:Cite taxon).
  2. In {{cite usda plants/sandbox}}, I wrapped {{PLANTS/sandbox}} so that both templates will have identical formatting.
  3. In Template:PLANTS/testcases, I tested {{Sfnp}} and it now appears to work well.
If everyone is happy with the formatting, I will promote the sandboxes to the main templates. — hike395 (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: It occurs to me that we can generate unique harvid in the template, ignoring the date. Would it be better to use something like {{sfn|<taxon name> NRDC}} ? That might be better to avoid collisions. — hike395 (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way you have it in the sandbox will work fine for my needs with sfn. I saw your added sfn test cases. That looks good. Let me try something in my sandbox, too. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tests for PLANTS changes

[edit]

My understanding is that you can use the |ref= parameter in the citation to set a unique name, rather than relying on automatic generation from authors and year/date. So using with |ref={{SfnRef|NRCS|2024}} or |ref={{harvid|NRCS|2024}} in the citation would work with {{Sfn|NRCS|2024}} or the |Harv= equivalent. Both generate "CITEREFNRCS2024" as the |ref=.

The {{PLANTS}} template could generate a default value using the year/date. So we can use {{SfnRef|NRCS|2024}}[1]

The {{PLANTS}} wouldn't need an author and the title would appear first. We don't actually know the author so using NRCS is not strictly accurate. NRCS can be placed in the publisher.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jts1882, in this example, you didn't use sfnref in the ref parameter, you directly set it to CITEREFNRCS2024. Is there a reason? I ask because I have been running sfn tests and have more to run, then I will come back here with my findings. This feels like deja vu. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just checking it worked. I was thinking of setting it in the template using the date parameter if present and it seems easier, at least when using a module, to do so in one step using a concatenated string than calling the template.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jts1882, ah, okay. I just noticed your test used {{Cite taxon}}. Below are some tests with PLANTS, Cite PLANTS, and PLANTS/sandbox. Interestingly, in Template:PLANTS/testcases to mimic setting the date and using the internal last1 value, {{Test case|_collapsible=yes|_titlecode=yes|id=SYON2|date=2015a|taxon=Symphyotrichum ontarionis|access-date=6 July 2015}}, Hike395's test cases for shortened footnotes work – through {{Test case}} – which is really odd.

PLANTS: Test PLANTS with hardcoded ref=CITEREFNRCS2024a: {{PLANTS|id=OEAR4|title=''Oenothera arizonica''|access-date=4 November 2024 |ref=CITEREFNRCS2024a }}. Error sfnp error: no target: CITEREFNRCS2024a.[2]
PLANTS/sandbox: Test PLANTS/sandbox with hardcoded ref=CITEREFNRCS2024b: {{PLANTS/sandbox|id=OEAR4|title=''Oenothera arizonica''|access-date=4 November 2024 |ref=CITEREFNRCS2024b }}. Error sfnp error: no target: CITEREFNRCS2024b.[3]
PLANTS/sandbox: Test PLANTS/sandbox without setting ref and setting date, thus counting on the internally set last1 value of NRCS: {{PLANTS/sandbox|id=OEAR4|title=''Oenothera arizonica''|access-date=4 November 2024 |date=2024c }}. This gives error sfnp error: no target: CITEREFNRCS2024c.[4]
Cite PLANTS: {{Cite PLANTS | ref = {{sfnRef|NRCS|2021a}} | id = SYNO2 | taxon = Symphyotrichum novae-angliae | date = 2021a | access-date = 22 June 2021}}.[5] No error.
PLANTS: {{PLANTS | ref = {{sfnRef|NRCS|2021b}} | id = SYNO2 | taxon = Symphyotrichum novae-angliae | date = 2021b | access-date = 22 June 2021}}.[6] Error sfnp error: no target: CITEREFNRCS2021b.
PLANTS/sandbox: {{PLANTS/sandbox | ref = {{sfnRef|NRCS|2021c}} | id = SYNO2 | taxon = Symphyotrichum novae-angliae | date = 2021c | access-date = 22 June 2021}}.[7] Error sfnp error: no target: CITEREFNRCS2021c and maintenance message {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default.
PLANTS/sandbox: {{PLANTS/sandbox | ref = {{sfnRef|USDA|2021d}} | id = SYNO2 | taxon = Symphyotrichum novae-angliae | date = 2021d | access-date = 22 June 2021}}.[8] Error sfnp error: no target: CITEREFUSDA2021d.
Cite PLANTS: {{Cite PLANTS | ref = {{sfnRef|NRCS|2021e}} | id = SYNO2 | taxon = Symphyotrichum novae-angliae | date = 2021e | access-date = 22 June 2021}}.[9] No error.
Cite PLANTS: {{Cite PLANTS | ref = {{sfnRef|NRCS|2021f}} | id = SYNO2 | taxon = Symphyotrichum novae-angliae | access-date = 22 June 2021}}.[10] No error.
PLANTS: {{PLANTS | ref = {{sfnRef|NRCS|2021g}} | id = SYNO2 | taxon = Symphyotrichum novae-angliae | access-date = 22 June 2021}}.[11] sfnp error: no target: CITEREFNRCS2021g.

The only ones that give no error are Cite PLANTS. All {{Cite PLANTS}} does is a straight redirect to {{PLANTS}}! And, the html links are built appropriately in each of them, so if you click on one of the short notes, it takes you to the reference even though an error is generated. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, see Category:Harv and Sfn template errors#Current limitations and false-positive errors. These are indeed false positive errors and need to be logged so they can be put in Module:Footnotes/whitelist. <bangs head on desk> – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: I remember running into this for {{cite gnis2}}. The problem is that we need to decide what goes into the whitelist: we thus need to decide what the default harvid will be for this template. If editors are content with CITEREFNRCS<date>, I can add that to the whitelist. But if we want something else, I have to wait for that decision. — hike395 (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe I have spent all these hours testing and trying to figure this out... gah. Software engineering career flashbacks. We could probably have multiples on the white list for a template, couldn't we? I was looking at some of the entries in the talk page archives.
Hike395, Yes, CITEREFNRCS2014 for sure, because the maps are copyrighted that date. I actually don't know if the data has changed at all since then, and I am not sure how to find out. If we could also do CITEREFNRCS2014a, CITEREFNRCS2014b, CITEREFNRCS2014c, CITEREFNRCS2014d, CITEREFNRCS2014e, and CITEREFNRCSn.d., that would cover six options in one article, for infraspecies, and a no date one. What do you think? Maybe start there and then I could see how the tests go. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: We don't need to make a set of fixed string: we could use a pattern match, like NRCS%d*%a? That would be slightly more expensive, but would then allow different dates. For the version in the sandbox, I was planning on dropping n.d. because that isn't supported by {{cite taxon}}, which jts proposed. I will go ahead and promote the sandbox to main and modify Module:Footnotes/whitelist. — hike395 (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hike395: Having puzzled over why I wasn't seeing the errors, I assume that your addition of 'CITEREFNRCS%d*%a?' to Module:Footnotes/whitelist suppressed them.

A couple of possible issues. At the top of the module page it says Do not include disambiguation letters in whitelist entries. In other words, use "CITEREFSmith2018" in this whitelist even when the cite template generates "CITEREFSmith2018a"., which possibly means 'CITEREFNRCS%d*' would be sufficient.

The Lua patterns section says Do not create a pattern here if a normal whitelist entry or entries can be created. This is unclear to me, but suggests that there is a more performance efficient way of doing this, possibly of form

  • ['PLANTS'] = { ['1'] = {'NRCS', '2004'}, ['2'] = {'NRCS', '2005'}, ... ['22'] = {'NRCS', '2025'},

Although then there is an issue with canonical names and redirects, which is baffling.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your suggestion (above) is to add {{PLANTS}} to "wrapper_templates_defaults_vol". As far as I can tell, the data in "wrapper_templates", "wrapper_templates_defaults", and "wrapper_templates_defaults_vol" in Module:Footnotes/whitelist are never used in Module:Footnotes, so I don't think that will work. It looks like either we have to supply an exact match for the CITEREF string, or a pattern match. The code is obscure, however, and I may be missing something. — hike395 (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand all those sections on the whitelist page so treat my suggestions as guesses.
I'm confused. I was trying to generate those error messages above for testing and can't get them with changing last, date and ref. I tried removing the whitelist regex and looking at this page in editor mode and didn't see any of those errors.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, the error detector in Module:Footnotes actually reads the contents of the article (see Module:Footnotes/anchor id list, line 108). I think when you're in preview mode, the contents are not checked in and so the error detection won't see your changes. — hike395 (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That could explain why I consistently fail to see the errors as I do a lot of checks in editor preview.
Anyway, I've been thinking it would be better if the short footnote was of the form "PLANTS Database (year)", which is clearer than "NRCS (year)" and that {{PLANTS}} should drop the author. Example.[12]  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with {{PLANTS}} as we have it now – with the author as NRCS (year). As I said before, this is very similar to how they have requested it be cited (see https://plants.usda.gov/help), and we really should have an author in citations if we know the author.

Regarding {{Cite taxon}} using PLANTS, I wonder how many articles we have using that. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably none. I added the PLANTS option with the intent to use the module to update the PLANTS template, but as it' now done with the wrapper template there is no need now.
Now I have a further question. Why does {{cite PLANTS}} not generate the harvard errors when it is a redirect to {{PLANTS}}, which does produce the erros when called directly.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked the same question. Is it explained on the Category page that I linked to? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citation

References

  1. ^ NRCS 2024.
  2. ^ NRCS (2024a).
  3. ^ NRCS (2024b).
  4. ^ NRCS (2024c).
  5. ^ NRCS (2021a).
  6. ^ NRCS (2021b).
  7. ^ NRCS (2021c).
  8. ^ NRCS (2021d).
  9. ^ NRCS (2021e).
  10. ^ NRCS (2021f).
  11. ^ NRCS (2021g).
  12. ^ PLANTS Database 2024.
References

Template for citing NatureServe Explorer

[edit]

Does anyone know if there is a template for citing NatureServe Explorer? I have looked and don't think there is, so I wrote one with documentation in my user space today as a needed distraction. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A long overdue template for citing NatureServe Explorer has been created. Template:Cite NatureServe. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're a legend for this, thank you! I actually tried to figure out how to write a template like this for this exact purpose the other day, because I spend a lot of time adding conservation statuses to speciesboxes, but decided against actually publishing it as I have 0 experience creating templates and wasn't convinced it would actually work. Now if only there was an easy way to convert all the existing Template:Cite web references.. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hike395, I also noticed a false positive with this new template. Let me do some testing and get back to you. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sadly makes sense. We can put an exception into Module:Footnotes/whitelist, but again we'll have to decide what {{sfn}} should use as a harvid. — hike395 (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: Added the CITEREF as it stands today to the whitelist. Let me know if we should be doing something else. — hike395 (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hike395, that looks good for Cite NatureServe and appears to fix it. Thanks! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Plants described in" category for conserved names

[edit]

There's no clear advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories#Choosing a category as to what to do in the case of conserved names. The basionym of Euonymus fortunei is Elaeodendron fortunei dated to 1863, but the species was actually first described in 1851 as Euonymus hederaceus. However, Elaeodendron fortunei is conserved against Euonymus hederaceus. I'm inclined to use Category:Plants described in 1851, but I'm unsure as to whether this is how the category is meant to be used. Advice, please. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the category page, and likely on all of these year category pages, the first sentence is:
This category includes plant species that were first formally and validly described in 1851 according to the rules of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
If the 1863 name is conserved, it means that another name was valid. If that is the 1851 name, and it was the earliest, then I think using the 1851 category is appropriate. You might want to put a comment in the code explaining the reasoning in case someone happens to want to change it later. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's certainly my view, but I couldn't remember any discussion of such cases before (although I'm sure there must have been). Peter coxhead (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this advice to Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories#Choosing a category. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archive open for lending again

[edit]

I don't know how many other editors use Archive.org for botanical texts, but for the last month it has been down due to hacking and then their tech team needing to do a good deal of work to secure the site. I have found that I have been able to log into my account and borrow texts again. I changed my password as a precaution, though I did not receive an official notice that it was necessary because emails and passwords were breached during the hack as reported in Wired. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrophylloideae/Hydrophyllaceae

[edit]

I recently updated Hydrophylloideae a bit. I'm not really clear what to do about this group, particularly which genera should be included (e.g. via genus taxonomy templates). Recent papers and APweb now appear to reject the broad circumscription of Boraginaceae used in the 2016 APG IV system, recognizing, for example, Hydrophyllaceae and Namaceae. I haven't found a circumscription of the subfamily Hydrophylloideae which seems to me to be sufficiently recent to be acceptable, so in the Hydrophylloideae article I've resorted to using APweb's Hydrophyllaceae plus Namaceae. What do other editors here think? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would use APG IV, discuss the papers, and talk about the website (what it is) and what it has now. Basically, what you just wrote here but elaborated encyclopedically. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I expect APGV will split Boraginaceae, but until it comes out (or until most taxonomic databases start splitting), we should retain Boraginaceae s.l. Using APweb's as you've done seems reasonable for now. Plantdrew (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, wait for APG V for any change. The current treatment is a good example of how to treat a common alternative taxonomy that differs from the guideline source.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On sources, Hilger & Cole have a Boraginales Phylogeny Poster and a Boraginaceae Phylogeny Poster (both 2020). They list the genera with subfamilies and tribes where they exist. I assume it will be very similar to the APweb treatment.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone for your comments.
@Jts1882: I think I did at one time know about these posters, but had forgotten. I've added the Boraginales one to the article as a reference.
@Plantdrew: all the non-redirected genera I've now listed in Hydrophylloideae have taxonomy templates with Hydrophylloideae as the parent. It seems that you created them in May 2017, but the refs field is empty. Do you recall what source you used?
Let's hope APG V appears soon and is followed by the major taxonomic databases. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead:, I don't recall. May 2017 is close to the beginning of my efforts with automatic taxoboxes in February 2017, and I'm now surprised to be reminded that I had tackled a family that had a subfamily classification that early. Early on, I was checking The Plant List to confirm genus placement to family (without adding it as a reference to taxonomy templates), and generally avoiding working on families with subfamily classification since The Plant List didn't have that. I'd guess I went with GRIN for Boraginaceae subfamilies since that was (and still is) the reference for subfamilies in the Boraginaceae article (although that is now out of date; GRIN is currently splitting Boraginaceae). Plantdrew (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew: yes, that's the problem: sources like GRIN that give subfamilies do seem to be splitting Boraginaceae. Maybe we shouldn't be using Hydrophylloideae as a parent in taxonomy templates at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not. NCBI also splits Boraginaceae; NCBI, GRIN and APweb are the three sites I would consider reliable sources for infrafamily classification (along with some other sites that cover a single family). I do look at iNaturalist and Wikispecies to see what they are doing, but wouldn't cite them (note that they don't split). Most of the genus taxonomy templates just have Boraginaceae as the parent.
Boraginoideae is written as if Boraginaceae were split, and {{Taxonomy/Cynoglossoideae}} assumes a split (it would just be a tribe in Boraginoideae otherwise) Plantdrew (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Cocoa bean#Requested move 7 November 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cocoa bean#Requested move 7 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radulaceae

[edit]

In a 2022 paper, the authors made the case for separating the monotypic liverwort family Radulaceae into three genera. WFO accepted this change. See sources, below. We should implement this, correct? I'm currently working on a list of everything that needs to be done in order to do that. I did a search of archives of this talk page and did not find discussions that seemed related. There is no discussion on the talk page for Radula (plant) (which is where Radulaceae redirects to), nor on List of Radula species, so I'm suspecting this has not been brought up.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The changes were proposed in this pub doi:10.11646/bde.45.1.7 in 2022, (which can be viewed here [1]). In lichen taxonomy, classification changes based on divergence estimates are quite controversial, but I don't know what the vibe is in plant taxonomy. I'm happy to update the relevant pages (and create the new genera) if that's appropriate. Esculenta (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The split is also recognised at The Bryophyte Nomenclator. With WFO accepting it, are there any regularly updated sources that don't recognise the split?  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I preemptively updated List of Radula species. Easy revert if needed. I'll be offline for a few hours. @Jts1882 Catalogue of Life shows it, too. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Catalogue of Life uses Bryonames as their source. I think that is how I found out about The Bryophyte Nomenclator.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WFO uses Bryonames as well [2]. Plantdrew (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further research shows that we have more restructuring to do. I researched up to division Marchantiophyta. Fortunately, it has the same three classes that we have in the article Marchantiophyta. However, child taxa of some classes have changed. I foresee some restructuring up to the Class level. I won't explain it all here, but I'm taking notes. I'm willing to and interested in taking this on since I've been doing the research.

Here is what alerted me, then I dug deeper, or climbed higher.

Family Radulaceae is no longer placed in order Porellales Schljakov, which is the order we use in Template:Taxonomy/Radulaceae.

Marchantiophyta Stotler & Crand.-Stotl.
Jungermanniopsida Stotler & Crand.-Stotl.
Jungermanniidae Engl.
Porellales Schljakov [three families]
Goebeliellaceae
Lepidolaenaceae
Porellaceae

Radulaceae is now placed by itself in order Radulales Stotler & Crand.-Stotl. The taxonomy from WFO of Radulales Stotler & Crand.-Stotl. is

Marchantiophyta Stotler & Crand.-Stotl.
Jungermanniopsida Stotler & Crand.-Stotl.
Jungermanniidae Engl.
Radulales Stotler & Crand.-Stotl. [one family]
Radulaceae Müll.Frib.

We have used name Radulineae R.M. Schust. as a suborder under Porellales. However, Radulineae is treated by WFO as a synonym of order Radulales Stotler & Crand.-Stotl., currently eliminating this.

Unless there are concerns or objections, I'll work on this. I have spent time in taxonomy templates before, so it's not new to me. Tagging Ethmostigmus and Esculenta so you'll see what's up. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bryonames is apparently following Table 1 in doi:10.1002/ajb2.16249 for changes to liverwort classification (I haven't checked the moss classification against Bryonames yet). Bryonames isn't recognizing the suborders though. When there's a reference in a taxonomy template be sure to update it if you're changing the parent. Plantdrew (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew thank you. You saved me the steps of digging up the source then confirming it here. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a quick look at mosses and there is some change based on Bechteler et al. (2023),especially around Dicranales. A while back I set most of the higher classification of mosses to the classification of Goffinet (a website, based on his classic book, with some updates; last update in 2020). His group seem responsible for most of the new orders and family movements in the Bryonames classification. I'll have a deeper look tomorrow.  —  Jts1882 | talk  20:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from a few sequence changes, the significant changes involve Dicranidae, especially the break-up of Dicranales.
I'll have a go at updating the taxonomy.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Cheers to you and Thank you! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jts1882, Template:Bryophyta is going to need a refresher, too. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esculenta, I'm working on a taxa inventory of Marchantiophyta (liverworts) based on the latest changes we've been discussing. I'm more interested in creating the taxonomy "stuff", and you are really good at reading the papers and updating articles. After I get the inventory ready (hopefully by EOD tomorrow), would you be interested in working on this to do updates? We can split the work. I could work on the taxonomy templates, lists, etc., and perhaps you could enhance existing articles. I think we're going to need some additional articles, too, at the family and above. Not all of them, but perhaps some of the most important ones. You're doing good work on Radula. You could go ahead any time and split off Radulaceae Müll.Frib. (currently a redirect to Radula (plant) into a separate article since the family is no longer monotypic. There are changes I'm going to have to make to the taxonomy template for the taxobox, and I can get to that later today. Or let me know if you have other ideas? You are so fast! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I especially like working on family articles (there's usually so much literature to work with), so will split off Radulaceae some time this weekend. I'll also make Dactyloradula (monospecific, quick and easy). Esculenta (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! You're a rock star! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Esculenta, also, the suborder is gone, and the order is different (see above in this comment thread). I will get that changed in the taxobox stuff, but you should use the new order in the prose. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Esculenta, hi! Getting back to this. I've been working on a list of articles that need to be updated. It is located at User:Eewilson/Marchantiophyta (liverworts) taxonomy changes. I'm going to ping you on its talk page for discussion. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a citation template for the paper Plantdrew mentioned today. I skimmed it. Very interesting.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Made articles for the genus and the family, but I'll let you handle updating the taxonomy templates. Esculenta (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Taxonomy/Radulales, has been created. Anything that descends from Radulales should be correct now in the templates. There are additional taxonomy templates that need to be created. I'm working on those. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Bryonames

[edit]

I've added an option to {{cite taxon}} for citing Bryonames.

  • Genus: {{Cite taxon|bryonames|genus=Sphagnum|access-date=17 November 2024}}
    Brinda, John C.; Atwood, John J. (eds.). "A synopsis of Sphagnum". The Bryophyte Nomenclator. Retrieved 17 November 2024.
  • Family: {{Cite taxon|bryonames|family=Hookeriaceae|access-date=17 November 2024}}
    Brinda, John C.; Atwood, John J. (eds.). "A synopsis of Hookeriaceae". The Bryophyte Nomenclator. Retrieved 17 November 2024.
  • Order or other taxon
    • {{Cite taxon|bryonames|order=Funariales|access-date=17 November 2024}}
    Brinda, John C.; Atwood, John J. (eds.). "A Classification of the Funariales". The Bryophyte Nomenclator. Retrieved 17 November 2024.
    • {{Cite taxon|bryonames|taxon=Hypnanae|access-date=17 November 2024}}
    Brinda, John C.; Atwood, John J. (eds.). "A Classification of the Hypnanae". The Bryophyte Nomenclator. Retrieved 17 November 2024.
    • {{Cite taxon|bryonames|taxon=Dicranidae|access-date=17 November 2024}}
    Brinda, John C.; Atwood, John J. (eds.). "A Classification of the Dicranidae". The Bryophyte Nomenclator. Retrieved 17 November 2024.

In general, you can just use |taxon= and it will work, but |genus= adds italics to the title and |genus= and |family= produce a "Synopsis of ..." style title following the Bryonames website. You can override the |title= and |url= or add citation formatting parameters like |mode=cs1/cs2. I could create a {{cite bryonames}} if people prefer.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC) I[reply]

@Jts1882, I would like a Cite bryonames for cs1, if you don't mind. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I would always like that. Thank you) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps
{{Cite bryonames | taxon= |rank= |access-date = }}
or
{{Cite bryonames | taxon/order/family/genus= |access-date = }}
– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done It looks like all is working as intended. Let me know if there is a problem.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hike395, {{Cite bryonames}} is giving the false positive error. The string is "CITEREFBrindaAtwood" plus the year pattern. Could you add that to the white list? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you seeing the errors? I don't see them in User:Eewilson/Scratchpad2 (the whitelist hasn't been updated a time of writing this). I never seem to see these errors, which means I can't check the templates for them.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a way to turn on seeing them. They are in a group of citation errors that are automatically hidden. Let me find it for you. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, look at User:Eewilson/common.css. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if that doesn't help, do what they say to do at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just worked that out (after checking skins and mobile view). I had the CsS1/CS2 errors but not harv.
I've created some tests at User:jts1882/blank. The error can be suppressed by using |ref=. I could add a default |ref= to the template, getting the year from |date=.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see that. But then did you see that this gives the maintenance message {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default? That's because the ref parameter is using the value that is being automatically built from authors and date. So they have the whitelist. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I removed the date in the next pair of test short citations. That's not a solution, though. So there is a choice between a suppressed error, a suppressed maintenance message or using a whitelist that adds overhead.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the whitelist is the way to go. Unless someone can actually find and solve the root cause. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Endangered species by reason they are threatened has been nominated for discussion

[edit]

Category:Endangered species by reason they are threatened has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

About 70 subcategories, the oldest from 2015, are also being proposed for deletion. Plants are underrepresented in the species categorized. HLHJ (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liverworts, Bryonames, and suborders & subfamilies

[edit]

Bryonames does not give suborders and subfamilies for liverworts (Marchantiophyta Stotler & Crand.-Stotl.). I have not checked its other categories. Do you know if this is typical of Bryonames (similar to POWO also not giving subs)? Did Bryonames once recognize these and now does not? How should we handle this in our taxonomy templates, and if we wish to use these levels, where are we to get our information? @Peter coxhead, @Plantdrew – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done much on bryophytes, so can't help, I'm afraid. I think that some of the major taxonomic databases, like PoWO (and indeed the World Spider Catalog which I use a lot as I edit spider articles as well) deliberately avoid 'minor' ranks because they tend to be less stable and more disputed. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bryonames doesn't use suborders or subfamilies for mosses or hornworts, either. Is there a classifications with suborders and subfamilies that is more recent than those in Goffinet & Shaw's Bryophyte Biology (2nd ed, 2008). The Söderström et al (2016) classification of hornworts and liverworts didn't use either rank. [Correction: they used both] Subfamilies are used for hornworts in Villarreal & Goffinet's online classification, which is based on the chapter by Renzaglia, Villarreal & Duff (2008) in the book, although there are some changes updates (I'm not sure of the date). There was a similar online classification for liverworts (ca. 2013-14), but I can't find it (it may have been on the late Ray Stotler's website). —  Jts1882 | talk  10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the online classification of liverworts is this archived one: Liverwort Classification at the Rank of Genus and Above. It's based on the book with updates from a 2009 work. It included suborders, but not subfamilies.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Söderström DOES include suborders and subfamilies, and is largely following Crandall-Stotler (the author of the liverwort classification chapter in Goffinet & Shaw). Crandall-Stotler lists suborders but doesn't list subfamilies. Saccogynaceae and Stephaniellaceae are two families that Söderström recognizes that weren't recognized by Crandall-Stotler; Bryonames accepts both. I'm not sure if that means that Bryonames is largely following Söderström, with the changes recommended by Bechteler, or if Bryonames is cobbled together from various references post-Crandall-Stotler (i.e., whatever sources Söderström followed in recognizing Saccogynaceae etc.).
Bryonames is a product of MOBOT, and is largely generated from Tropicos. While Tropicos includes records for taxa at minor ranks, it usually does not assign children to them; liverwort suborders are an exception to that. I do see that Bryonames puts Jubulaceae in Jubulales while Tropicos has it in Porellales (and suborder Jubulineae). Tropicos records for Jubulaceae and Jubulineae were lasted edited in 2017 (post-Söderström, pre-Bechteler). I would guess that Bryonames may have once included suborders.
I don't think Wikipedia has any articles for liverwort subfamilies and suborders (but I have created redirects for them when they were monotypic in Söderström). I guess we could just omit them from taxoboxes. Crandall-Stotler is old enough that I wouldn't want to cite it, but the more recent options are Söderström (also getting kind of old now) or Bryonames; Bechteler is not a comprehensive classification. For taxonomy templates, I generally prefer citing journal articles over websites that are following the classification from a journal article; the journal article is static, while the website can change at any time (it's not helping my opinion of Bryonames that it has updates that aren't in Tropicos). Plantdrew (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what I did was updated taxonomy templates from Bryonames, and if parent was set to a suborder, I changed it to the order and cited the source Bryonames gave for the taxon change. The site has the most recent source on the taxon page when the taxonomy has changed. When it was available, I checked the source as well. The suborder taxonomy templates still exist. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers name

[edit]

Hello, Can somebody help recognize there flowers:

They both look like Gazania to me, but I couldn't tell you what cultivar. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Ethmostigmus:. --Gpkp (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd've said that the second looks like a Dahlia. The buds in the background are out of focus, but the associated involucres look like Dahlia and not Gazania. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Lavateraguy:. --Gpkp (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move request for division (biology)

[edit]

My watchlist has informed me of a proposal to move division (biology) to division (taxonomy). (This would be a move over redirect.) Lavateraguy (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of orchid cultivars

[edit]

I just removed a statement about the number of hybrid cultivars from Orchid. The claim had been in the lead of the page and completely unsourced since it was first created. If anyone has ideas about sources for an accurate figure that can be trusted not to have circularly got their information from wikipedia in the first place, please join in at Talk:Orchid#Number of cultivars. Averixus (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historic taxo box?

[edit]

Is there such a thing as a taxo/information box for groups of plants that were previously regarded as a species, genera, etc., but are still used in horticulture and so we are retaining the article? The most recent one I'm aware of like this is Nomocharis. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, our WP:PLANTSTEMPLATE says no. So it would seem that taxobox should be removed. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be removed, I was hopeful that there would be an equivalent of the of the notice put on the German language wikipedia, example Nomocharis at de and my rough translation.

The classification of living organisms is the subject of ongoing research. Different systematic classifications exist alongside and following each other. The taxon dealt with here has become obsolete as a result of new research or is not part of the not part of the systematics presented in the German-language Wikipedia.

WikiProject Plants
Scientific classification Edit this classification
(obsolete)
Kingdom: Plantae
Clade: Tracheophytes
Clade: Angiosperms
Clade: Monocots
Order: Liliales
Family: Liliaceae
Subfamily: Lilioideae
Tribe: Lilieae
Genus: Nomocharis
Though it would be even better with an infobox under it showing where it was previously classified. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never understood the argument against using taxoboxes in articles on obsolete taxa. If there are reasons for having the article in the first place, then a summary of taxonomic information is appropriate and taxoboxes do that. There is a |classification_status= parameter which can be used to note the status.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think one reason may be that editors didn't want to create taxonomy templates for obsolete taxa, particularly when automated taxoboxes were in a minority. There's still an argument for not creating a taxonomy template for an obsolete genus, I think, since its absence may act as a signal if someone creates an article on a species in an obsolete genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the reason for removing taxoboxes is that it is impossible to say where APG would place an order or family that it doesn't recognize, and pre-APG classifications at the ordinal level varied highly between different systems. That reason doesn't apply so much for genera which APG itself doesn't list at all, and where classifications may generally agree about family placement. There are a lot of articles on obsolete orders and families (relative to the number of recognized orders/families), and few articles on obsolete genera (again, relative to the number of accepted genera).
I'd support some kind of notice or taxobox for obsolete genera. Plantdrew (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in my comments above I was only really thinking about genera. It is indeed difficult or impossible to put old suprageneric ranks into any currently recognizable taxonomic hierarchy, and we shouldn't try. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The newly adopted notability guidelines for species reads, for Eukaryotes, "All eukaryotic species that are accepted by taxonomists are presumed notable. Acceptance by taxonomists is proven by the existence of a correct name for plants, fungi, and algae, or a valid name for animals and protozoa." The example in this thread is a genus, not a species, but I don't think we should be keeping the article without a very good reason, regardless of what other wikis do. I remember the discussion about the page a few weeks ago on this talk page. I didn't get involved but am surprised that the article was kept rather than being merged (or written) into the article(s) for the acceped genus/genera. I don't have a strong argument for or against a taxobox for unaccepted taxa – yet. I want to make sure, though, that we are remembering Wikipedia's guidelines and not just having a discussion here then making a decision without knowing the broader implications. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone, it wasn't my intention to shut down the discussion.
We could probably use {{Taxobox}}. And we could make a wrapper template for it for obsolete taxa if we wanted. I think before doing that, we should be clear on why, when, and where we should use it, which is why I brought up notability.
It could be a handy tool to use inside the article of the accepted taxon – if we don't want a separate article. And of course using it in a currently accepted taxon article's taxonomy section could be editor's choice.
If we do it, we should document it and make sure we include the information on the project taxon page – why, when, and where to use (and not to use).
A personal note: I am having trouble with my astigmatism, and I think it is affecting my ability to read right now. Eye doctor in January. So if I repeat something someone else said, and it appears like I am making it my idea, it is absolutely unintentional. Second, I read and respond on talk pages using my phone a lot. After about five or six indents, it gets next to impossible to read. I know that the Reply button is convenient, but I would like to request that if your reply to a thread is going to be the fifth or sixth indent, instead of using the button, edit the thread manually and use the {{od}} template to return to the left margin. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with others that articles like Nomocharis should generally be redirected to whatever recognized taxon now contains them, and the circumscription of the obsolete taxon described in the "Taxonomy" section of the recognized taxon's article (which might sometimes warrant splitting off of a "Taxonomy of..." article and summary style). Taxa that only figure in a single system (e.g., Kubitzki system) might be redirected to the page on the system instead. In general, I think our non-prose features (-boxes, -bars, etc.) are presumably being consumed by readers in a hurry, or by automated systems. Rightly or wrongly, they are taken as appurtenances of legitimacy, and we're better off folding obsolete taxa into article prose (not always an easy task) than trying to fit them into current systems and adorn them with those features. Choess (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Really, the only articles that should be kept are ones where the debate itself rises to the level of notability, such as (the now valid again) genus Brontosaurus. Abductive (reasoning) 10:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linking taxon authors

[edit]

Is there is simple way of finding appropriate links for taxon authors when making lists of species in genus articles and other taxon lists? When I link authors with potential articles for prominent authors it usually involves guesses and disambiguation pages, which is time consuming and means I often don't add links. Is there a list somewhere or would such a list be a useful tool?  —  Jts1882 | talk  18:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know about the ever-growing List of botanists by author abbreviations? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the list Elizabeth linked above, I primarily use WFO (which conveniently links to the author's Wikidata item, when applicable) or IPNI, which you can search by the author's standard abbreviation. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions. I hadn't noticed the author links on WFO Plant List. The author isn't linked on the main WFO site. I've noticed that the taxonbar now links to the Plant List version of WFO (following a request by one of the WFO development team at Wikidata). This doesn't include the descriptions and distributions. While there are links between the versions, I wonder if both should be linked from the taxonbar.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you are on a taxon page in POWO, scroll down to get to the IPNI link. It will take you to a page where you can click on the IPNI link(s) for the author(s). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template#Short description section

[edit]

I expanded the Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template#Short description section. I added information that is suggested from WP:SDESC with alternate examples. It doesn't set anything in stone, but at least it covers our original information and what is on the short description informational page. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the consensus was "species of plant"? Abductive (reasoning) 10:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abductive, Do you mean as in "plant" singular instead of "plants" plural? Or "plant" instead of "flowering plant"? Or just having all articles have the short description say "Species of plant" (or genus, or whatever)? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Up until December 7, 2022 I used to put "Species of plant in the family Fooceae" but somebody somewhere said something and I switched to "Species of plant". At that time I was creating an article a day, so I looked in my talk page archives and the archives of this talk page for that time period, but didn't see it there. My current stub layout represents the consensus of those editors here with lots of experience, with (what I believe is) one exception; I use the Collapsible list template where others use Species list template for the synonyms in the infobox. As for why "Species of plant" is the consensus, I think it is because we don't want to conflict with Wikidata, because we don't want to have to redo any if a bunch of plants get switched to a new or different family, and because the short description is used mostly by readers hovering over a wikilink and all they need is "plant". Abductive (reasoning) 07:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last night, I changed the template section in a way that includes what was there as well as information from, and links to, WP:SDESC, the short description information page. It's wordy and somewhat ridiculous, but I didn't want to unilaterily remove the existing example.
Some history: It looks like {{Short description}} was created in 2017. The section for Short description at WP:PLANTSTAXON was added 28 November 2019 with example "{{short description|Order of Eudicot flowering plants in the Superrosid clade}}, and it was modified on 29 March 2022 (by you) to read "{{short description|Species of flowering plants in the family Amaryllidaceae}}". Other than a few display changes, the section has not been updated, and the example has included the family.
It is suggested at WP:SDESC not to include the family. This was added in this revision on 20 October 2021. WP:PLANTSTAXON didn't get changed to reflect WP:SDEXAMPLES then or at any time since (until last night). I personally think there's no reason we should contradict WP:SDESC with our examples on the template page. I'm okay with us having "Species of plant", "Species of flowering plant", "Species of moss", etc., and removing all the other stuff.
Regarding Wikidata, WP:SDESC has a section Why not simply re-use Wikidata's item descriptions? at WP:SD-VS-WIKIDATA. It presents an argument against relying on Wikidata for the short description. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should go beyond "species of flowering plant" (and I'm fine with just "species of plant"). At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Short_descriptions/Archive_2#"Short_descriptions"_that_are_no_longer_short,_and_liable_to_require_constant_editing, the argument is made that shifting family circumscriptions lead to outdated short descriptions. While I don't expect too much change in plant family circumscriptions, there will be some (e.g. Boraginaceae).

Short descriptions usually use singular ("plant") for species and plural ("plants") for higher taxa.Plantdrew (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Illicium verum#Requested move 18 November 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Illicium verum#Requested move 18 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Frost 09:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to treat Coelorachis (Poaceae)

[edit]

I'm not sure what to do with Coelorachis. Taxonomic databases vary at present. The majority treat it as a synonym. GRIN, ITIS and the "Accepted Names" tab of Tropicos support treating it as a synonym of Mnesithea. POWO, GBIF and WFO support treating it as a synonym of Rottboellia. (See the links in the taxonbar at Coelorachis.)

Soreng et al. (2015) in their worldwide classification of Poaceae treated Coelorachis as a synonym of Mnesithea.[1] Then their revision, Soreng et al. (2017), changed to treating it as a synonym of Rottboellia, but with the (to me) feeble statement "Kellogg (2015, p. 300) mentioned an unpublished DNA study where Coelorachis is placed in Rottboellia rather than Mnesithea as proposed by Veldkamp et al. (1986); and we now follow that here."[2] Veldkamp et al. (2013) places Coelorachis in Rottboellia,[3] and is cited in the PoWO entry for Rottboellia as supporting their use of this genus. However, Veldkamp et al.'s placement is based on morphology,[3] which molecular phylogenetic studies suggest is not a good guide to finer relationships in Poaceae.

The later molecular phylogenetic study of Andropogoneae by Welker et al. (2020) supports Mnesithea. The four species they place in Mnesithea (Mn. formosa plus Mn. helferi = C. helferi, Mn. selloana = C. selloana, and Mn. lepidura = C. lepidura) fall into a clade they call Subtribe Ratzeburgiinae, whereas the one species of Rottboellia they included (R. cochinchinensis) falls into a different clade they call Subtribe Rottboelliinae.[4] The PoWO approach puts the three Mnesithea species that are synonyms of Coelorachis in Rottboellia, leaving the other in Mnesithea, so is inconsistent with the cladogram in Welker et al. (2020).

Obviously all this taxonomy can be written up, but only one article title can be used for the species. I was initially inclined to go with treating Coelorachis as a synonym of Mnesithea, and so moved Coelorachis cylindrica to Mnesithea cylindrica, but now I'm less sure what is best.

Comments please.

References

  1. ^ Soreng, Robert J.; Peterson, Paul M.; Romschenko, Konstantin; Davidse, Gerrit; Zuloaga, Fernando O.; Judziewicz, Emmet J.; Filgueiras, Tarciso S.; Davis, Jerrold I. & Morrone, Osvaldo (2015), "A worldwide phylogenetic classification of the Poaceae (Gramineae)", Journal of Systematics and Evolution, 53 (2): 117–137, doi:10.1111/jse.12150, hdl:11336/25248, ISSN 1674-4918, S2CID 84052108 Table 1.
  2. ^ Soreng, Robert J.; Peterson, Paul M.; Romaschenko, Konstantin; Davidse, Gerrit; Teisher, Jordan K.; Clark, Lynn G.; Barberá, Patricia; Gillespie, Lynn J. & Zuloaga, Fernando O. (2017), "A worldwide phylogenetic classification of the Poaceae (Gramineae) II: An update and a comparison of two 2015 classifications", Journal of Systematics and Evolution, 55 (4): 259–290, doi:10.1111/jse.12262, hdl:10261/240149, ISSN 1674-4918
  3. ^ a b Veldkamp, J.F.; Heidweiller, J.; de Koning, R.; Kraaijeveld, A.R.; Sosef, M.S.M. & Strucker, R.C.W. (2013), "A revision of Mnesithea (Gramineae - Rottboelliinae) in Malesia and Thailand", Blumea, 58: 277–292, doi:10.3767/000651913X678257
  4. ^ Welker, Cassiano A. D.; McKain, Michael R.; Estep, Matt C.; Pasquet, Rémy S.; Chipabika, Gilson; Pallangyo, Beatrice & Kellogg, Elizabeth A. (2020), "Phylogenomics enables biogeographic analysis and a new subtribal classification of Andropogoneae (Poaceae—Panicoideae)", Journal of Systematics and Evolution, 58 (6): 1003–1030, doi:10.1111/jse.12691
Google Scholar finds some older material, which might give some context. One point that comes up is that the type of Coelor(h)achis is/was an Eremochloa, and Coelorachis has priority over Eremochloa. I found a couple of papers suggesting that the name Coelorachis should be conserved, but not as yet confirmation that it was. I think you need to resolve this issue. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants&oldid=1260389853"