User talk:Plantdrew/Archive 11

Barberetta

You rated Barberetta before. I have expanded this article, and I think it is not a stub anymore. Perhaps you could review its rating. Thank you in advance. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, comments on the article talk page. Plantdrew (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wachendorfia thyrsiflora

I have edited and expanded Wachendorfia thyrsiflora, which you have rated before. I think it is not a stub anymore, and perhaps you may want to revise its rating. Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)+[reply]

Done; solid C-class Plantdrew (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Baeckea species for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Baeckea species is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baeckea species until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Categorizing historically recognized plant genera

I noticed your edit to Piperia. Looking at articles in Category:Historically recognized angiosperm genera, there seems to be quite a bit of inconsistency in the other categories used.

Most genus articles are also placed in a straight taxonomic category, typically family or subfamily.
Some, but not the majority of those I looked at, are also placed in a "TAXON genera" category.

My practice to date has been to use "Category:Historically recognized ... genera" as a substitute for "Category:TAXON genera" rather than an addition. Maybe this needs a wider discussion – or has it already been discussed? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:, you and I had discussed this previously at User talk:Peter coxhead/Archive_5#Obsolete orders, which I had forgotten about. Your position has been consistent (I was arguing for Category:TAXON categories rather than "Category:TAXON genera" in the old discussion). I don't think there has been any other discussion.

I think every article about a kind of organism should be in some category that establishes it's position in the tree of life. I've been inclined to put articles into the most precise existing tree of life category. There are also categories that pertain to "status as a taxon", which are subcategorized on a coarser level (if at all). Category:Nomina dubia and Category:Nomina nuda aren't broken down at all (well, currently Nomina dubia includes Category:Invalid dinosaurs, but that category is poorly named (members aren't all "invalid" in the technical sense used by the ICZN)). Category:Undescribed species has a total of 6 subcategories (across 1 to 3 levels). Category:Common names of organisms has a bunch of subcategories; members are not taxa, but can be placed somewhere in the tree of life. Category:Enigmatic eukaryote taxa (and parent Category:Incertae sedis) is a horrible mess of subcategories (there's a difference between an extant genus with different lines of evidence suggesting may be best included in 2 different families in the same order and a fossil that can't be confidently assigned to a kingdom; if this category tree is supposed to indicate the precise level at which a genus is incertae sedis, it's going to end up with a ton of underpopulated order level categories).

"Obsolete"/"Historically recognized" categories pertain to "status as a taxon". That category tree doesn't have very many subcategories. I'd be OK going forward to let "angiosperm" be the most precise tree of life position with historically recognized plant taxa (and omit any more precise "TAXON" or "TAXON genera" categories)

It comes down to limitations of Wikipedia's category system. Categories shouldn't be "too big" and some of the "status as a taxon" categories would be too big if everything was upmerged. Categories for monotypy are insanely fine-grained, but the existing subcategories still can't accommodate all monotypic cases precisely (monotypy isn't quite a "status as a taxon" from a taxonomists perspective, but does inform how en.wiki handles taxonomic names). A tagging system for attributes (with no worries about "too big") would be better.

In short, I guess I'm OK with "historically recognized angiosperm/(plant)" as the only "position in the tree of life" category for relevant articles. However, there are other "status as a taxon" categories that are more/less finely divided. Plantdrew (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying issue for me is that the whole category system seems to be a mess. I find it increasingly difficult to take it very seriously. But it's nice to know that you've discovered that I have been consistent! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AlgaeBase URLs

Hi, I see that you fixed {{AlgaeBase genus}} at one point for what appears to have been a change in the way AlgaeBase URLs work. They seem to have changed again; see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algae#AlgaeBase templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of Life Newsletter

Is it possible to receive the Tree of Life newsletter on my Wikispecies page rather than here? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 00:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Faendalimas:, it should be technically possible (there are other newsletters that have subscribers across different Wikimedia projects), but I'm not sure how you should format your entry at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Newsletter#Subscribers. Maybe you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders? While I was looking into this, I came across Wikipedia:Wikispecies/Mailing list (for en.wiki editors to get a Wikispecies newsletter). Perhaps if several other Wikispecies editors are interested in the en.wiki ToL newsletter you could set up a mailing list on Wikispecies (though I'm not sure what it would take to make it work)? Plantdrew (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dates with authorities in algae articles

As you have probably noticed, I've been converting manual taxoboxes in algae articles, using AlgaeBase as the main source. It's not always up to date, but does generally present a self-consistent classification. Initially I removed dates in authorities on the grounds that algae are subject to the ICNafp, but I soon realized that editors were just following AlgaeBase, so although I didn't include dates where I had to add authorities, I stopped removing existing ones. Looking at papers on algal phylogeny suggests to me that it's more usual in this area to include them than it is for, say, vascular plants. But on the other hand, I'm generally for consistency. What are your thoughts on this? Peter coxhead (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all those clean-ups of the automated taxoboxes I created in algae articles; I was clearly going too fast. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: I'm having second thoughts about the authority dates and will probably revert myself. What set me off was finding a couple species article with a DESCRIBED IN YEAR category that was the date of the combination, not the date Wikipedia has defined to be the year a ICNafp species was described (the combination dates given by AlgaeBase are of course the relevant dates for purposes of priority under the ICNafp). I'm not a fan of described in year categories, and I guess I just need to accept that most editors populating the year categories are just going with the year that is presented most obviously (and not checking that e.g. a species was first described with a homonymous name that was replaced).

I'm not sure how I feel in general about copying years from AlgaeBase. I haven't made any effort to remove them before, but I don't think I've included them in any content I've written (I've sometimes put years in square brackets when they were already on an ICNafp taxon page). I'm having second thought specifically about my having removed dates from dinoflagellates. They've been treated as governed by both of the major codes, so standardizing to the authority format preferred by one of the codes probably isn't worthwhile. I guess that goes for other ambiregnal protists as well. Plantdrew (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ambiregnal/ambicode protists are an issue where consistency isn't worthwhile, I agree. I was largely working on "macroalgae" at the time, so I tend now to think I should have removed the years for them.

Like you, I'm not a fan of the "Described in year" categories, the usefulness of which seems highly doubtful to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Golden orb" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Golden orb and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 10#Golden orb until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. George Ho (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pterois russelii

Hi Plantdrew, I have edited this article to destub it and noted you have left a note on the talk page about edits. What is that about? Have my edits been contra this note? Thanks. Quetzal1964 (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Quetzal1964:, you haven't done anything wrong. The article history is a bit confusing as there was also an article at the misspelling Pterois russelli (two l's, one i), which is what the note is about. Plantdrew (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can u help?

hello. here these principal ranks are not bold and even with "always_display=yes" they still dont show. Can you elaborate with me, what do i do? Some1 ^{talk} 13:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The automated taxobox system has a lot of support templates, which are required. You seem to have some missing on your Wikipedia. Specifically, for the taxon bolding you need Template:Principal rank (for class, order, family etc) and Template:Don't edit this line always display (for |always_display=), which seem to be missing. There are other issues such as the taxobox colour not being set for the major group (e.g. animals). — Jts1882 | talk 14:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Punetor i Rregullt5: ~~The colour is because Template:Taxobox colour is a redirect rather than a copy of the template.~~ Add those ~~three~~two templates and see if that helps. I suspect there are others missing as well. — Jts1882 | talk 14:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. The taxobox header colour is the same as the English Wikipedia version. These taxonomy hierarchies use the Eukaryote colour for animals, unlike the taxoboxes. I hadn't noticed that before.

@Punetor i Rregullt5: I've added the two templates at the Albanian Wikipedia. The principal ranks and those with |always_display= are now displayed in bold. — Jts1882 | talk 17:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882: thank youuu sooo much, but can you PLEASE i know you dont have to do this but check this image below it says that i need to cretate a Template:Taxonomy/Panthera tigris which i know i dont have to. Some1 ^{talk} 05:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are trying to use |taxon=Panthera tigris with {{automatic taxobox}}. You need to use {{speciesbox}} for species taxoboxes. — Jts1882 | talk 07:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pteroptyx

Hi, thank you for your assessment on the Pteroptyx genus page! I saw that you noted on the talk page that it could use an image but there's already an image right in the infobox. It's a relatively short article (for now...) so I didn't want to carpetbomb it with images. Maybe more in the infobox as a collage of sorts? All the best, Kazamzam (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazamzam:, sorry, my mistake tagging it for needing an image. Most of the articles I assess are stub/low/no-image, so I just copy-paste a template with those parameters set, and change them whenever an article isn't a stub or has an image. But sometimes I forget to change what I'm copy-pasting (at least I remembered to change stub to start on Pteroptyx). Plantdrew (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those darn pufferfish

Not quite sure that that editor was thinking. I've looked into them and it all seems innocent enough, so I'd like to AGF and say they were just misled or confused... But I'll keep an eye on them.

As to unfinished business, Oblique striped pufferfish and Oriental striped pufferfish are both deletable under WP:R#D8 (and honestly borderline under WP:CSD#G3), but, as redirects from pagemoves, may now be linked from somewhere. I'm thinking I'll wait a month to see if pageviews drop off, and then RfD them; that sound good to you? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: that sounds go to me. Thanks for making the move. If the redirects don't get deleted I suppose they should be tagged with something like {{R from incorrect name}}. Plantdrew (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the Primula aureata image

Hi PlantDrew.

This is JarroNevsbaru. I'm here to explain posting the picture on the article Primula aureata.

I wanted to make the article look the best it could be so went looking for an image I could use. That is where I found a photograph of the species in question taken by Mike Ireland. I emailed him asking for permission to use the image on my article. He responded that he would be "very pleased" for me to use his image just as long as I credited the image. I made sure to credit it and thought this as ok.

I'm very sorry if I have broken any wikipedia rules, I genuinely thought it would be ok as long as I had his permission and that credit was given. I will not use pictures from outside of wikisources in future. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JarroNevsbaru (talk • contribs) 22:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JarroNevsbaru:, sorry, I hadn't noticed your edit summary where you said you had permission. Good for you for asking permission from the copyright holder. I'm not very familiar with the process for confirming that a copyright holder is willing to release their work with a Wikipedia compatible license, but apparently you'll need to get Mike Ireland to send an email to Commons confirming the release. See c:Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_VRT?. Plantdrew (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plant automatic taxobox progress

I've been working on some of the groups at the bottom of your list at User:Plantdrew/Plant automatic taxobox progress, as you've probably noticed. I've cleared Charophyta and Acanthaceae, and will soon finish Bignoniaceae.

As usual, the articles not previously converted to automated taxoboxes have often been left because they are problematic. I have several queries out with IPNI/PoWO over name oddities. (A strange one is this protologue which uses two different spellings/transcriptions of the genus name within a few lines, neither of which are used exactly by IPNI.) Peter coxhead (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:, excellent. I've just done an update of my list. I'm not sure if by "bottom of [my] list" you mean the first section (numbered, families ranked by remaining manual taxoboxes) or the entire list (with the biggest section being APG families marked as done or not). Bginoniaceae and Acanthaceae are towards the bottom of both. I'm not including families with less than 10 manual taxboxes in the numbered/ranked section. You can do a search in text for "<10" for these other families in the APG section; there are 4 families with a single manual taxobox where the article needs to be moved (search in text for "extended move").

I got caught up in a video game in February/early March and didn't spend much time on Wikipedia. Now I'm trying to catch up on checking new articles created during my break. And it's been several months since I've done any work on plant taxoboxes (though I've worked on some other organisms). I still intend to tackle Asteraceae sometime soon. APWeb suggests that Rubiaceae classification isn't very stable, and I've been waiting for a publication to settle that. But at this point, I'm thinking about going ahead and working on Rubiaceae following Bremer, 2009 (which is basically what the current Rubiaceae tribe articles are based on, although Bremer isn't always cited). Plantdrew (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I mean the bottom of the "families ranked by remaining manual taxoboxes" list, i.e. those with fewer remaining manual taxoboxes. Sub-family classifications remain a problem in most of the families I've looked at. For example, I've just been working on Orobanchaceae. There are some good molecular phylogenetic studies and APweb has corresponding tribes, but many genera haven't been included in the studies and aren't placed in a clade/tribe.

I'm very happy to leave Asteraceae to you! Peter coxhead (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Betula

I noted that Betulaceae and Betula are on the list. There's a 2021 paper at doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2021.107126 which seems to have a well supported phylogeny and proposed intra-generic classification of Betula, but it doesn't give a clear list of species by its subgenera and sections, rather giving variations from this book, which I don't have access to, although it's possible to work out some species classifications from the text. I think that the Betula species pages with manual taxoboxes can really only be set up to use at most the subgenus taxonomy templates at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:, the link you provided doesn't resolve to a title for me. Am I correct in assuming it's Ashburner & McAllister "The genus Betula : a taxonomic revision of birches"? There's a copy in the library at my work. Plantdrew (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irritating, it doesn't resolve for me now; it only seems to work first time. Yes, it's the 2016 revision of this book, which is cited in the Wang et al. (2021) paper. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked out the library copy, but it's the 2013 edition. Plantdrew (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any views on what to do with Betula uber? Sources seem clear that at best it's a variety of Betula lenta, and most likely just a form. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. It's listed under the Endangered Species Act which provides some momentum to continuing to recognize it as a species. FNA recognizes it as a species as do ITIS and USDA PLANTS (but not GRIN). Ashburner and McAllister treat it as a form. I'm not very keen on having articles on forms, but I think it's better to have an article for a form then sinking a legally protected taxon altogether. (Halophila johnsonii is another ESA listed plant that I've been reluctant to do anything with (it's likely just an asexually reproducing population of introduced H. ovalis)). Plantdrew (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Oof" indeed. I wonder about moving it to the English name, rather than the forma name. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which English name? "Virginia roundleaf birch", "Virginia round-leaf birch", "Virginia birch" (all listed by ITIS), or "Ashe's birch" (listed by Tropicos)? I'm surprised to see FNA has "Virginia roundleaf birch"; FNA common names generally are formed the same way as BSBI names (except for capitalization); "Virginia round-leaved birch" would follow the usual pattern for FNA names. In addition to the usual caveats with a Google test, Google doesn't distinguish between the presence/absence of a hyphen (roundleaf vs. round-leaf). Plantdrew (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brachymystax savinovi

I wouldn't usually use a Cyrillic common name, but felt this case is a unusual as this is the name used by the IUCN at their assessment. I haven't seen them do this before. On the other hand, Ленок is clearly not a common name used by English speakers. — Jts1882 | talk 09:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882: IUCN once had a number of non-English common names listed as English (under "Taxonomy in detail"), usually with no common name shown for the language from which the common name was actually derived. Most of the examples I'm aware of now have truly English common names with the other names correctly categorized by language. PolBot created articles at Cachorrito de charco palmal and Dislisazancik baligi (the latter merged as the species has been synonymized). I'm pretty sure İznik shemaya was the IUCN-listed name when the article was created (the first character isn't in the English alphabet, and IUCN now has it with a normal capital I, although I still don't think shemaya is really an English word).

Ленок is (per FishBase) the FAO-approved Russian name for Brachymystak lenok; it doesn't seem unreasonable for Russians to refer to the other two species that have been split out (or the genus as a whole) as Ленок, but there should be another word if there is supposed to be unique common names for the split out species (IUCN also has Ленок as the Russian common name for B. lenok). I'm not aware of any other IUCN listed species that now have a common name in another language, but no English name. For Brachymystax savinovi, IUCN has Ленок as Russian (not English) under "Taxonomy in detail"; presumably it is displayed prominently at the top of the page because there isn't an English name.

In short, displaying Ленок is a quirk of IUCN, and it isn't a unique common name for the species. Plantdrew (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fish eagle (disambiguation)

The article Fish eagle (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A disambiguation page is not required. All these entries are already listed at the article targeted by the primary topic redirect Sea eagle.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willamette Valley Ponderosa Pine

I've been converting Pinaceae articles to automated taxoboxes. One that is problematic is the article Willamette Valley Ponderosa Pine. It uses the scientific name "Pinus ponderosa var. willamettensis" but there's no evidence that I can find that this name was ever published. The rather complicated 2016 paper at doi:10.3732/ajb.1600336 suggests the the Willamette Valley population is not unique being part of what the authors suggest might be treated as Pinus benthamiana, but they call for further research. So what to do? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:, maybe use {{Population taxobox}} for now (I'm not sure if it's suited for plants or only animals though)? Other published scientific names associated with ponderosas west of the Cascades include Pinus ponderosa subsp. benthamiana and Pinus ponderosa subsp. critchfieldiana (though the latter is superflous and illegitimate per IPNI). As it stands now, the article for the Willamette Valley pines doesn't mention anything from the Puget Trough or Klamath Mountains. I can believe that there is a distinct (poorly-studied) taxon west of the Cascades, but I have troubling believe that Puget and Willamette trees are going to be distinct. Plantdrew (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, {{Population taxobox}} works fine – good idea! The 2016 paper mentioned above supports your view, I think, although I don't have your detailed knowledge of the geography of the area. Certainly it finds an OTU combining "the relatively isolated ponderosa pine populations from the Willamette Valley, Oregon and the Puget Sound Basin, Washington" although in their analyses this further combines with "ponderosa pines near Santa Cruz, CA" which seems less plausible. The paper is too technical to summarize in the article, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian lobelioids

I'd be grateful for your views at WT:PLANTS#Hawaiian lobelioids. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gilia austro-occidentalis

At User:Plantdrew/Plant automatic taxobox progress, you have a note under Polemoniaceae that "Gilia austro-occidentalis needs extended move to remove hyphen". It's true that IPNI doesn't have the hyphen, but Art. 60.11 says "A hyphen is permitted ... when the letters before and after the hyphen are the same" and then in an example says "Hyphen to be maintained: Athyrium austro-occidentale". I guess "to be maintained" doesn't mean that a hyphen can be added, but this is beyond my understanding of the ICNafp. What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All but one (CalFlora) of the taxonbar databases omit the hyphen. I take "to be maintained" to mean that a hyphen can't be added if it wasn't present in the original spelling (Art 60 is all about when it is permissible to alter original spellings). I guess my next step is to verify whether the hyphen was originally omitted.

On a related note, Greigia vanhyningii was recently moved from Greigia van-hyningii. That may be correct, but the taxonbar databases mostly include the hyphen (the exception are Wikispecies, and WCSP/IPNI/POWO (all Kew)). Plantdrew (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The basionym of Gilia austrooccidentalis is Gilia inconspicua subsp. austrooccidentalis. See this paper, p. 254. It was spelt without the hyphen (as it was also in the elevation to a species in this paper, p. 438). So given the interpretation that a hyphen can't be added, it should not be present, as per IPNI, etc.

Ok, I'm now convinced that it should be without the hyphen, so I've made the move and added a brief Taxonomy section. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found the original protologue for Greigia vanhyningii online (Bulletin of the Bromeliad Society 9: 53 (1959)), but see this article, p. 41 where the quoted bold "van-hyningii" might imply that this was the original spelling, in which case Art. 60.11 would appear to apply, since the epithet is from "Van Hyning". Or I suppose the quotes could also mean that it's incorrectly found this way. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are some other uses of quotes in the article, some of which I can check against the original. E.g. on p. 43, against Hechtia gayorum there is "gayii", which is what is used in the original here. (The correction from gayii to gayorum is because the protologue clearly says "Etymology.-Named for Mr. and Mrs. Ed. Gay".) So it does look as though the double-quotes indicate the original, but we do really need to see it. Should have searched a bit harder; see first article here. Definitely with a hyphen. However, looking at Art. 60.11, I now think the hyphen should be deleted. The two words must be independently latinized to count as separate words. Thus in Ex. 40, Mesospora vanbosseae was originally 'van-bosseae' but it's treated as a single word latinization, unlike roberti-lamii in Ex. 41, where each part is separately latinized. Quite a subtle distinction! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siphonophora

Hello. Did this. Happy to recieve comments. Didn't move the genus article yet. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@YorkshireExpat:, thanks. I've disambiguated incoming links and edited the dab page a little.

A month ago I made some efforts to standardize the disambiguation terms used for articles under WikiProject Arthropods. Among others, I moved articles with (ostracod), (amphipod) and (copepod) disambiguators to (crustacean); crustacean seems more recognizable to the general public, and the former dab terms were needlessly overprecise. WikiProject Arthropods had an editor (who is no longer active) who strongly advocated for using (genus) as a disambiguatory term whenever possible. The problem is, it's frequently not possible; the most likely ambiguity with a taxon name is another taxon with the same name. This stems from how taxon names are formed, being often compound Greek/Latin words that were never used in classical Greek/Latin (e.g. Siphonophora), or common European surnames Latinized by adding -ia (e.g. Muelleria). In the absence of any consensus on how to disambiguate arthropods when (genus) wasn't possible, a whole bunch of varying disambiguatory terms ended up being used.

I haven't yet attempted to standardize the disambiguation terms for myriapods. There are 2 articles with the disambiguation (myriapod), 3 with (centipede), 14 with (millipede) and a bunch with (genus). On one hand, (myriapod) covers both centipedes and millipedes, but on the other hand, I suppose (centipede)/(millipede) are more generally recognizable than myriapod, and fewer articles would need to be moved to standardize on those two dab terms. I'm not sure how much work your doing on myriapods, but do you have any thoughts about what dab terms to use? Plantdrew (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done much around myriapods, but I've been doing a lot of moths. Moths and butterflies seem to be disambiguated as either (moth) or (butterfly) (don't have exact numbers, I think your petscan skills are better than mine) rather than (lepidopteran), which suggests that (centipede) and (millipede) would be more natural. I agree that (genus) isn't good (see for example Kupea and Kupea (moth)). YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Kupea (moth) is wrong :), it's monotypic! But you get my drift. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PoWO bug with authorities

Re your new note on your user page: in my experience, PoWO is generally more accurate than IPNI in dealing with new combinations. I've been working on the 2019 split of Tibouchina, and have a list of cases where PoWO has the authority correct but IPNI has only the transferrer. I think the source of the problem may actually be when PoWO has used IPNI for the authority. I have been told in the past that the problem goes back to Index Kewensis, which often listed "taxonomic mentions" rather than "taxonomic acts". Where PoWO and IPNI differ, they are supposed to be going to run consistency checks. If both are wrong, I would normally e-mail IPNI. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compare PoWO with IPNI for Chaetogastra longifolia, for example. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:, I found one example from my edit history: Baccharis articulata. IPNI and POWO are the only taxonbar databases that give the authority as "Pers." rather than "(Lam.) Pers.". Plantdrew (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only wrote that "PoWO is generally more accurate than IPNI". :-) For Tibouchina and the segregated genera Chaetogastra and Pleroma that I've been working on, my experience is that Tropicos is the best source. I've had to make up tables for myself for several species to understand what is going on. For example, following up the original sources in BHL, I'm confident that Tropicos is correct for Rhexia mollis and combinations with it as the basionym. PoWO and IPNI differ from each other, and I believe are both wrong.

	Tropicos	PoWO	IPNI
Basionym: Rhexia mollis	Bonpl.	Bonpl.	Humb. & Bonpl.
Homotypic syn. Chaetogastra mollis	(Bonpl.) DC.	(DC.) DC.	DC.
Homotypic syn. Tibouchina mollis	(Bonpl.) Cogn.	(DC.) Cogn.	Cogn.

Peter coxhead (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now e-mailed both IPNI and PoWO, suggesting that Tropicos is correct, and they are both wrong. I await responses with interest! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: IPNI has replied and has now updated its entries for these three binomials.

One thing I don't understand is illustrated by the treatment of Lasiandra stenocarpa in Tropicos. The basionym is said to be Lasiandra stenocarpa Schrank & Mart. ex DC. But if you look at the protologue here, de Candolle gets the epithet stenocarpa from Rhexia stenocarpa in "Schr. et Mart. mss." IPNI treats Rhexia stenocarpa as legitimate here; if it is, then it's surely the basionym, not Lasiandra stenocarpa? If it's not legitimate, then the basionym is Lasiandra stenocarpa, but why is this then "Schrank & Mart. ex DC." rather than just "DC."? Is this something you understand, because I certainly don't! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have trouble with "ex" authorship; the codes differ in whether the actual author comes first or second and I can never remember which is which (reading up on it now, botany has the actual author second). Tropicos doesn't have a record for Rhexia stenocarpa, so it couldn't be presented as the basionym (even if it SHOULD be). I think IPNI may be in error though. The publication given in IPNI for Rhexia stenocarpa is de Candolle's; if Schrank & Mart. had published legitimately, that publication should be given for Rhexia stenocarpa. If Rhexia stenocarpa isn't legitimate, the authorship "Schrank & Mart. ex DC." for Lasiandra stenocarpa is fine (and it would be OK to omit "Schrank & Mart. ex" and have just "DC."). Plantdrew (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You and me both about "ex" authors. The whole concept strikes me as a recipe for confusion, and the differences between curated taxonomic databases just demonstrate it. Anyway, I've asked IPNI editors about this case; like you I don't see that Rhexia stenocarpa is legitimate. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Jeffreya#Taxonomy for another that IPNI & POWO have wrong. Willd. 1974 vs. Cabrera 1978. POWO recognizes Neojeffreya, a replacement for Cabrera's name. Plantdrew (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if I've got it right as per Tropicos, Jeffreya Wild. (1974) is legitimate, and has two species Jeffreya palustris (O. Hoffm.) Wild and Jeffreya petitiana (Lisowski) Beentje. Jeffreya Cabrera (1978) is illegitimate, and has the replacement name Neojeffreya Cabrera (1978), with one species Neojeffreya decurrens (L.) Cabrera. I've got several queries out with IPNI and PoWO at present, so should I add this one, or will you? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add it to your queries. I think you've established your credibility with them by now. Plantdrew (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and thanks!

Wow! You're really on the ball with my new gastropod category pages. I haven't even finished the Olivella one! Thanks. P.S. I'm hoping to get it done tomorrow. Uporządnicki (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move request for my 'Tête-à-tête' daffodil page.

Hi Plantdrew. Thank you for adding my page to the wikipedia category Ornamental plant cultivars!

When looking at other pages on the category I realized that all the pages there are titled differently to mine. They seem to all begin with the genus and then the cultivar name, but my page is named the cultivar and then the common name, which i feel is incorrect.

I would really appreciate your help if you could move the name again so it can be called Narcissus 'Tête-à-tête' instead. I would like it to fit in better with the other articles on this website. Thank you for your time and sorry to be a bother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JarroNevsbaru (talk • contribs) 00:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JarroNevsbaru:, I'd be happy to move it for you, but you should be able to move it yourself. Before I do it, I wanted to confirm that the cultivar name is 'Tête-à-tête' and not 'Tête-à-Tête' (with the second Tête capitalized). The International Daffodil Register has it as 'Tête-à-tête', so that should be correct, but both capitalization variants are being used in the article. Do you want to standardize the capitalization used in the article? Plantdrew (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very grateful if you could move it thank you. Also thank you for noticing the mistake in capitalization. I'm not really familiar with moving articles on Wikipedia and fear I'd probably mess it up. JarroNevsbaru (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling issue is interesting. Bulb catalogues seem to capitalize both words, so I did too when labelling those I grow, but the RHS here doesn't, so we shouldn't. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made the move and did a bit of tidying. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyperus setiger

Hi, I was after some advice as to whether Cyperus setiger or Cyperus setigerus is the preferred name for the species. I created the page Cyperus setiger, but now wonder if the alternate name should have been used. Thoughts? Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hughesdarren:, Tropicos has a note that says the spelling should be C. setiger, so I guess that is correct (IPNI, GRIN and Tropicos are the places to check when there is a question about spelling; these databases often have notes about spelling issues). Most Cyperus species end in -us; I don't know why this one doesn't, but I don't have a very good understanding of Latin grammar (@Peter coxhead: may be able to explain). The note in Tropicos cites article 60.9 example 24 in the Melbourne code, which has pertains to hyphens, not gendered endings of epithets. Plantdrew (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to check. I'll leave it as is until Peter takes a look. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hughesdarren: IPNI is wrong. As the Wiktionary entry explains, setiger (a variant of saetiger) is the masculine form of an adjective, so agrees with the masculine Cyperus. (It means 'bristly', 'bristle bearing'.) Tropicos makes the same point, referencing Stearn's Botanical Latin. (In my experience, the average likelihood of the nomenclature being correct for those names they all cover is Tropicos > PoWO > IPNI.) IPNI has reproduced the original author's spelling, which in this case was apparently the incorrect setigerus, but the ICNafp says that errors in Latin terminations must be corrected. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have e-mailed IPNI, so hopefully the entry will be corrected soon. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plantdrew, @Hughesdarren: from the reply I had from IPNI, it's more complicated than I thought (often the case with the nomenclature codes!). Yes, the Classical Latin is setiger not the setigerus used in the original. However, the question is what Art. 23.5, which Tropicos cites as justification, allows to be corrected. The relevant bit is:

"The specific epithet, when adjectival in form and not used as a noun, agrees with the gender of the generic name; ... Epithets not conforming to this rule are to be corrected to the proper form of the termination (Latin or transcribed Greek) of the original author(s)."

Since setigerus is clearly masculine, although not the form used in Classical Latin, it seems that it isn't correctable by Art. 23.5. I've been told that there was a specific proposal at the 2011 Melbourne Session to allow -gerus and -ferus endings to be standardized to -ger and -fer, but this was rejected.
I still have some ongoing e-mails; when these are settled, I'll post at Talk:Cyperus setiger and we can decide whether to move the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Peter for taking the time to look into it. I'll keep an eye out for any messages on the article talk page. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Cyperus setiger#Proposed move. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 8: NYBG Environment of The Bronx - Editing Wikipedia for Beginners

Wednesday June 8, 11am-5pm: New York Botanical Garden - Environment of the Bronx - Editing Wikipedia for Beginners

Hello @Plantdrew! Very impressive biology focused edits! The LuEsther T. Mertz Library of the New York Botanical Garden and the Environment of New York City Task Force invite you to come to the Mertz Library in person and write about the environment of the Bronx!! All skill levels welcome at the event! Experienced Wikipedia editors from the Wikimedia New York City chapter will be in attendance and available to help. A one hour training session will be offered at the start of this event covering introductory topics. Attendees familiar with editing Wikipedia can edit off of a worklist focused on the environment of New York City; as well as, a sub-list focused on the environment of the Bronx. The Mertz Library will pull topical media from their collection to assist the editing.

--Wikimedia New York City Team via Wil540 art (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality and Importance

Hi Plantdrew, now that you lowered the importance scale of the article Ranunculus adoneus, I wondered how this can be assessed. It is written on the page about assessment that "greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of botany". How do you (and me) know about popularity if the article didn't even exist until yesterday? This sentence in the assessment page is very weird. The article should be considered at least of Mid-importance in the English Wikipedia since it is an American endemic plant found only in the Rocky Mountains at a particular site along the melting snow. This particular environment requires the plant to be heliotropic to warm up its flowers. I don't understand why this article was never written before. Do you know the answer? Thank you all the same for checking the article Ranunculus adoneus - Phacelias (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phacelias:, thank you for writing that article. I'm not understanding your reasoning for considering it to be of Mid-importance; could you explain your reasoning further? It occurs in a relatively small part of the world, and isn't well known to the general public. That makes it Low-importance in my view. There is an interesting fact about it (heliotropism), but that doesn't seem to have resulted in bringing it more attention from the general public. Plantdrew (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the species of Mid and Low importance and noticed that most Ranunculus species are listed as of low importance. I do agree with your edit. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

Thank you for your last edit on R. adoneus. However, also Ranunculus alpestris is a European alpine buttercup, so maybe it would be better to write that Ranunculus adoneus is an alpine buttercup instead of the alpine buttercup. Thank you again also for checking the article. Phacelias (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Micrathena sagittata

I noticed your comment re Plectana sagittata (the basionym) being described in either 1841 or 1842. I'm not sure how this could be investigated further. If you look at the original in the BHL at [1], someone has annotated the page (numbered 174) so that under "Scientific Names on this Page" the year is always 1842. But if you scroll back a page, the year changes to 1841. There's no very obvious division in the source at this point. So the question is why did the annotator consider that up to p. 173 was published in 1841 but p. 174 onwards was published in 1842? For old botanical literature, you can consult Taxonomic Literature, but how can you research old zoological literature? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:, I'm not sure where I made that comment. Could you link to it? Where are/how do you see the annotations? I see dates for some taxa under "Scientific Names on this Page", and BHL has publication dates where you can select the different volumes(?) of Apteres (but it's 1837 for vol. 2 and 1844 for vol. 3). Plantdrew (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if I'd spelt the genus name correctly; search for "Micrathena sagittata" at User:Plantdrew. The "Scientific Names on this Page" are manual annotations, as far as I know (the dates aren't in the text, for example). So someone has made up to p. 173 show "1841" and p. 174ff show "1842". This seems to be connected with the variation in sources for Plectana sagittata being described in either 1841 or 1842. The World Spider Catalog bibliography entry points out that vol. 2 can't have been published in 1837 (at least not all of it) because it includes references dated later.

So the question is how can one discover or check when the volume (or part of it) was actually published? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Independence Reno

Oy! What's with this guy, right? I see you and some other editors have reverted some of his edits. I've reverted nearly all of his other edits. He now has a few notices on his talk page. I'm monitoring for progress... - UtherSRG (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG:, thanks for keeping an eye on them. I reviewed all the edits they'd made up to the point I started reverting them, and there were a handful of good ones (as well as some I didn't feel like bothering to revert; e.g. replacing pheasant with gamebird). I'd updated the type species for Coua (it was wrong before Independence Reno edited it, they just made it wronger), which got caught up in your reverts. Ortalis and Oreophasis are apparently no longer included in Penelopinae, so IR had that right. And Wikipedia treats Muenster yellow-toothed cavy as a species, not a subspecies, so listing it as a species at Galea (genus) was at least internally consistent within Wikipedia (but it appears subspecies treatment is more current). Plantdrew (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All fair enough, but still should have citations included. And since those few good changes were mixed in with a large amount of bad ones, I'd rather revert as much as reasonably possible and then have someone who is more familiar and methodical make the good changes; even if that means IR makes those changes but includes citations or at least pointers to other articles for consistency. Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Cave lion (Disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cave lion (Disambiguation) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#Cave lion (Disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pedum spondyloideum

Hello. For my own reference, could you explain why you removed [[Category:Bivalves]] from this article. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, think I answered my own question. [[Category:Pectinidae]] is a member of that category several layers down. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big ask

Hi! There's a discussion going on at Talk:Crisis pregnancy center and you probably know the place we can look to close the matter most efficiently. In 2018, you modified the redirect Pro-abortion with the "non-neutral" redirect template. Presumably, so sort of consensus occurred around that term. If you could ping me with a link, we could wrap up an extremely long debate. If you don't have it, that's fine–I'll keep digging because there is at least consensus that there was a consensus. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"C. diff" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect C. diff and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 14#C. diff until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Hi Plantdrew

Thank you for editing the article. I am a biologist and I believe what I added is new and constructive.

Regards,

H. K Kioumarsi (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kioumarsi: I'm not giving the greatest example with my vaccillating about the second half of your edit, which I first reverted with the (completely unsuitable) first half, then reinstated, now removed agin in agreement with Plantdrew - but edit-warring is not papered over by dropping barnstars on people. You did the same thing to me. It does not work that way. Discuss FIRST, on the article talk page, THEN revert according to the outcome. If you want to argue the necessity of including these two sections, please state your case at Talk:Crane. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @ELMIDAE The barnstar was not dropped! The gift offered as sign of appreciation of your good work. Thank you for your time reading my writings. I mentioned that I am a biologist and I believe what I added is new and constructive. Then, there is nothing more to argue. Bless you! Kioumarsi (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad tool?

You seem to be removing the importance assessments from talk pages instead of the "needs-photo=yes". I mention it only because it a might be a bad tool, rather than a brain fart, which would be self-correcting. Abductive (reasoning) 14:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive:, Cyperus bulbosus was a brain fart. Isothecium myosuroides was a typo. I did a couple hundred of these, and I don't think I made any other mistakes. Thanks for cleaning up my errors. How did you find them? The articles by quality log report? The assessment table? Somewhere else? Plantdrew (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The assessment table, yes. Abductive (reasoning) 17:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gender of Xylosma

IPNI and PoWO treat Xylosma as feminine, so the other names in the genus with masculine specific epithets at List of critically endangered plants‎ are wrong. This is supported by Stearn (pp. 80–81 in my edition) which notes that most genus names in -ma are neuter, but not those in -osma which are derived from Greek οσμή, feminine, meaning 'smell'. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm working through the genus and moving articles to feminine endings. I'll correct the spellings in the lists by conservation status once I've moved all the articles that need moving. Plantdrew (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:, do you have an insight for the correct spelling of Xylosma hawaiiense? The original spelling is hawaiense (see BHL; it took me awhile to spot the description, it's on the bottom of the page under Pittosporum rather than Xylosma). Every source in the taxonbar except for IPNI has it as Xylosma hawaiiensis. Tropicos and POWO aren't in the taxonbar but spell it Xylosma hawaiensis, as does IPNI. I guess ense vs. ensis is a matter of gender that can be corrected, and i vs ii is a matter of the original spelling that can not be corrected. Plantdrew (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that you are right; hawaiiense is correctable to hawaiensis, the gender is correctable, the original single i to double ii is not. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes at Wikidata. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject tagging

Hi Plantdrew, with your recent edit to Talk:Xenotrecha, you removed a child project tag (WP:Spiders) and replaced it with the parent project (WP:Arthropods). Are project tags in the TOL not supposed to be at the lowest practical level? 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Loopy30:, Xenotrecha is a camel spider (order Solifugae), not a true spider (order Araneae). Perhaps non-spider arachnids could be considered in the scope of WikiProject Spiders, but that's not the status quo. Plantdrew (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah, very good then. I guess I was I thinking of "spiders" in the wider (non-status quo) sense. Loopy30 (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Authority identifier

While looking for items to add to HBD (disambiguation), I found Wikstroemia villosa which lists 'Hbd.' as the authority, which is actually William Hillebrand, and that article says 'Hillebr' is the correct abbreviation. Should "Hbd." be listed as an alternate (since apparently it is used somewhere) or should the plant article be changed. Either way, the field in the Speciesbox should be linked. Also, do you have an easy way to search for Hbd. in Speciesboxes to see if there are other cases? If you want to make any changes yourself, please do. MB 16:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MB:, I've changed it to Hillebr. at Wikstroemia villosa and found three other articles with Hbd. that I've changed as well. Author abbreviations in botany have a long history, but it's only quite recent that there is a single standardized abbreviation for every author (L. is the standard abbreviation for Linnaeus now, but Linn. was also used in the past). I've checked a database that records alternate (non-standard) abbreviations for botanists, and found no mention of 'Hbd.' for William Hillebrand. I don't think it needs to be included in the HBD disambiguation page. Plantdrew (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tillandsia

I noticed that you were tackling some of the manual taxoboxes in Tillandsia, which I've never had the courage to do! I have, however, tried to update the previously unreferenced List of Tillandsia species to PoWO's list of accepted species. There remain some articles which should be moved out of Tillandsia (see Former species) and some redirects in the main list which need to be fixed. Whether PoWO is the best source for a list of Tillandsia species is an open question, but no consistent source was being used, which resulted in some duplicated articles under synonyms, so I thought it best to at least start with PoWO. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I'm working on other bromeliad genera as well. Encyclopedia of Bromeliads] now has lists of species by subgenus. Wikipedia had some hint of infrageneric classification for Aechmea, Neoregelia, and Tillandsia, but didn't have articles for some subgenera, and existing subgenus articles were sourced to a dead link. Remaining Aechmea articles with manual taxoboxes are either in the "ined." subgenus Streptocalyx or are no longer included in Aechmea. Some of the remaining Tillandsia with manual taxoboxes are in (per Encyclopedia of Bromeliads) subgenera Pseudovriesea and Viridantha; it looks like POWO may be treating many species in these subgenera as species of Vriesea. Tillandsia subg. Allardtia isn't recognized by EOB; there are species with automatic taxoboxes linking there that may belong to other genera (per EoB and/or POWO). I'm just getting started working on speciesboxes for Neoregelia.

When I made my first pass implementing speciesbox in Bromeliaceae, I followed the 8 subfamily classification that seems to be well-established now, but I never got around to writing articles for the 5 new subfamilies split out of Pitcairnioideae. And there are a bunch of newly recognized genera that aren't linked from any subfamily article (I'm not sure if the list of genera at Bromeliaceae is up to date either).

Pepinia is a synonym of Pitcairnia; there are articles for 28 Pepinia species that need to be moved. The Cryptanthus articles with manual taxoboxes are mostly in Hoplocryptanthus now and need to be moved. Neoregelia subg. Hylaeaicum is now recognized as a genus; again, species articles need moves. Plantdrew (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:, what do you make of Tillandsia marnieri-apostollei vs. Tillandsia marnieri-lapostollei. POWO has it without the 'l', IPNI includes the 'l'; the IPNI and POWO IDs are the same, so presumably the spelling was once the same in both and was deliberately changed in one of them. Tropicos has 4 records with 3 different spellings and 3 different publications: [2], [3], [4], [5]. The record Tropicos has marked as a correct (noted by a !) is a different publication than the publication given in IPNI/POWO, and spells it with the 'l' (the Tropicos record that lacks the 'l' was copied from WCSP as part of the process of building The Plant List). I think it was intended to be named for Alexandre Marnier-Lapostolle or a relative (Alexandre has a connection to botany via the Jardin botanique "Les Cèdres").[[[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found the first publication online (illegitimate according to IPNI because no Latin diagnosis); it's at [6]. It's clearly "lapostollei", named in honour of Julien Marnier-Lapostolle. The German publication by the same author which later validated the name doesn't seem to be online, so I can't tell if this changed the spelling (no reason to suppose it would) but I would go with the original.

I revised the entry in the list of Tillandsia species. This seems a clear source to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now also the article, including restoring the Speciesbox you had added and then removed. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tillandsia botteri(i)

We have Tillandsia botteri, whereas PoWO and IPNI have Tillandsia botterii. Searching IPNI for the epithet "botterii" gives quite a list, all with "-ii". Looking up some of them in BHL, the epithet refers to someone called "Botteri" (which Botteri confirms is a surname). So the correct epithet according to the ICNafp is indeed botterii. I suspect that some sources thought, wrongly, that the person's name was "Botter", in which case the current rule is that only a single i is added and -ii should be changed. So I'm going to move our article. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Tillandsia circinnatioides (where you've added a subgenus) from Tillandsia circinnatoides
Tillandsia crista-galli from Tillandsia crista-gallii. Although I can't access the original publication, the table of contents here suggests it was originally spelt with ii. However, as Stearn confirms, crista-galli is a noun in apposition, literally 'comb of-a-rooster', galli being the genitive of gallus, so the double-i is definitely incorrect Latin, and I assume correctable as both PoWO and Tropicos do, although not IPNI.
Tillandsia elizabethae from Tillandsia elizabethiae. Although Tropicos has the spelling with an i, IPNI and PoWO do not. IPNI has no such epithet spelt with an i, but 22 spelt elizabethae (plus the genus Elizabetha) and 43 spelt elisabethae. The issue here appears to be that although the default rule for forming the latinized epithet from "Elizabeth" would add an i, this does not apply when there is an established Latin form; Rec. 60C specifically mentions elisabethae.
Tillandsia jaliscopinicola from Tillandsia jalisco-pinicola. Although Tropicos has the spelling with a hyphen, IPNI and PoWO do not. Tropicos is also inconsistent in that Tillandsia jaliscomonticola, which has the same structure, is spelt without a hyphen.
Tillandsia rohdenardinii from Tillandsia rohdenardini. IPNI, PoWO and Tropicos agree on this spelling, which is the standard for a personal name.

Oddities in Encyclopedia of Bromeliads

If you look up Tillandsia zoquensis, the entry says it's a member of "section Tillandsia fasciculata complex". Clicking on this says it's a synonym of "Tillandsia (subgen. of Tillandsia)", but Tillandsia zoquensis isn't listed in the "Taxa included". So is it a member of Tillandsia subgen. Tillandsia or not? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: I'd noticed this. I did add T. fasciculata to the list of species at Tillandsia subgen. Tillandsia. I think it's an issue with EOB's data structure. EOB says the species complex is a synonym of the subgenus, but the species complex is still given as the parent of some species, so they don't show up in the list of species on the subgenus page. Given the synonymy, I think it can be assumed that the species with the species complex as a parent belong to the subgenus. Of the 11 remaining Tillandsia species with manual taxoboxes, 9 have the fasiculata species complex as the parent on EOB. There may also be some species that don't have Wikipedia articles that EOB has in the species complex; finding these on EOB would be difficult. (the other 2 articles with manual taxoboxes are Tillandsia portillae which doesn't have any subgenus listed at EOB, and Tillandsia rohdenardinii which EOB treats as a synonym of T. winkleri). Plantdrew (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think your analysis is right; so the 9 can have their taxoboxes fixed with parent Tillandsia subgen. Tillandsia, I guess.

There are orthography issues with all three of IPNI, PoWO and EoB; I have some queries out with IPNI and PoWO, but staff of both seem to be at a conference right now.

(I've been trying to sort Vriesea in the same way, but it's even more difficult!)

Peter coxhead (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues

As of right now, the following have articles but are not in Tillandsia in PoWO. The genus transfers I've checked on seem to be traceable back to doi:10.11646/phytotaxa.279.1.1, a 2016 monograph which I can't access. You've given most of them subgenera based on EoB, I think. So should they be moved or left?

Tillandsia amicorum I. Ramírez & Bevilacqua = Cipuropsis amicorum (I.Ramírez & Bevil.) Gouda (EoB has as Cipuropsis amicorum)
Tillandsia asplundii L.B.Sm. = Cipuropsis asplundii (L.B.Sm.) Christenh. & Byng (EoB has as Josemania asplundii)
Tillandsia grandis Schlecht. = Pseudalcantarea grandis (Schltdl.) Pinzón & Barfuss (EoB has as Pseudalcantarea grandis)
Tillandsia myriantha Baker = Vriesea myriantha (Baker) Betancur (EoB has as Tillandsia myriantha)
Tillandsia singularis Mez & Wercklé = Cipuropsis singularis (Mez & Wercklé) Christenh. & Byng (EoB has as Josemania singularis)
Tillandsia truncata L.B.Sm. = Cipuropsis truncata (L.B.Sm.) Christenh. & Byng (EoB has as Josemania truncata)
Tillandsia viridiflora (Beer) Baker = Pseudalcantarea viridiflora (Beer) Pinzón & Barfuss (EoB has as Pseudalcantarea viridiflora)

Peter coxhead (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:, for most of these, I was following the existing Wikipedia pages for Tillandsia subg. Pseudalcantarea and Tillandsia subg. Allardtia when I added speciesboxes several months ago. These subgenera aren't recognized by EoB (nor by the 2016 monograph that is apparently the basis for EoB's current Tillandsia subgenus classification).

I've added parenthetical notes to your comment with EoB's treatment of the species. POWO and EoB agree for 3 of the 7. EoB recognizes the genus Josemania (first described in the 2016 monograph), while POWO does not; I'm not sure what basis POWO has for rejecting it. EoB recognizes Tillandsia myriantha and places it in Tillandsia subg. Pseudovriesea. Most of the species in that subgenus are red-links. Of the non-redlinks, three are redirects to combinations in Vrisea (in accordance with POWO) and two are recognized as Tillandsia species by POWO. I suspect many of the red-links in subg. Pseudovrisea could be made in to redirects to combinations in Vrisea if POWO is being followed. But POWO seems to be following older sources; subg. Pseudovrisea was described in the 2016 monograph.

I can send you a copy of the 2016 monograph if you'd like. It doesn't have a comprehensive list of species though.Plantdrew (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the species that we had in Vriesea but PoWO has in Tillandsia to Tillandsia, for the sake of consistency. As with the list above, Vriesea#Former species shows species that PoWO puts in other genera that I haven't moved.

I would like to see a copy of the 2016 monograph, thanks. I've e-mailed you so you have my current e-mail address. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tillandsoideae genera

Thanks for the monograph. Comparing genera between it, EoB and PoWO shows three discrepancies:

Wallisia – trivial; only described later than the monograph
Josemania and Mezobromelia – EoB follows the monograph in accepting these genera; PoWO sinks both into Cipuropsis (which needs an article here). As you noted above, it's not clear why PoWO doesn't accept them; I think we probably should, but there's then the issue of a list of species. What's your view?

Peter coxhead (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the species lists are fairly easy to generate by looking up PoWO's Cipuropsis species in EoB. See the table currently at User:Peter coxhead/Work page#Tillandsia / Tillandsioideae.

Note that the transfers to a broad Cipuropsis are all "Christenh. & Byng" – well known lumpers, followed by PoWO in other cases (e.g. ferns). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POWO isn't consistent in following either "Christenh. & Byng" or the monograph (see e.g. [7], where POWO accepts a name established in the monograph and synonymizes a name established by Christenh.). Is Cipuropsis the only genus where POWO favors the Christenh. treatment over the monograph? I'm inclined to go with the monograph. Plantdrew (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it may just be Cipuropsis. I agree; I'm using the EoB as the ref as it seems to follow the monograph for the genera in question. I'm working on moves/article creation first, then I'll try to add some taxonomy/phylogeny based on the monograph to the relevant articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Bulk" edits of categories?

I'm presently confronted with a few issues that would benefit from bulk recategorization (e.g., the re-elevation of Cicindelinae to Cicindelidae), but not all of these are so straightforward. I could use a little off-WP advice, if you could do me the favor of looking me up via my userpage and sending me an e-mail. Much appreciated. Dyanega (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dank/Sandbox/9

Just giving you a heads-up on this work-in-progress, in case you want to set me on the right path! - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: I'm working on List of commelinid monocot families now ... I changed the name today (I created it as List of commelinid families) because I couldn't come up with a good answer to the question: "Why is it 'lilioid monocots' and 'alismatid monocots' but not 'commelinid monocots'?" I'd also prefer that Main Page readers should at least be able to guess that the article is about plants just from the article title (but that's a secondary concern). But I see the category is "commelinids" ... anyway, it would be better to get the name right before nominating it at FLC, so ... do you have a preference for the name? - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank:, Commelinids are a clade and the article has dates to the early days of Wikipedia and has always had that title. Alismatids and lilioids are grades rather than clades and the articles were created later on. There's only one other article for a plant grade I can think of, basal angiosperms. I'm not sure that these articles (including commelinids) should have a plural title, but I guess for the grades, nobody has cared enough to move them to a singular title. "Commelinid monocot" is a phrase that used far less than just commelinid(s). I don't have a strong preference for a name for the lists; I'd lean towards excluding "monocot" for the commelinid list on grounds of consistency with the title of the main article, and conciseness. But including "monocot" does enhance recognizability. EDIT: there's Ginger-families (a clade) and Banana-families (a grade); these are monocots, but I can't see how to construct a title that would include "monocot", and the plural is clearly appropriate for these. Plantdrew (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, I'll change it back then. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PetScan searches

Hi Plantdrew, I am curious to know the actual (as opposed to anecdotally perceived) rate of improvement of stub articles to that of start class or higher. As an example, is there a way to use PetScan to search the Polbot automated stubs created a few years ago now (Task 6: 2007-2009) for the total number of articles created and the numbers of those articles that have been improved to date (to Start, C, B, A, GA, FA) or later deleted.

I do not know if any of the articles originally created by Polbot have had the category [[Category:Taxonomy articles created by Polbot]] removed, but it is an initial way to identify them. Would this is be a straightforward search to produce? Loopy30 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult because the quality class is on a talk page, and the created by Polbot category is on the article page. I'm sure some articles have had the Polbot category removed, but I don't think it's very many (although articles that have been turned into redirects usually don't have the category). We can get at FAs, GAs and articles with stub templates since those have categories on the article page. There are 32,407 articles in the Polbot category. 29 are FAs (all of these are birds or mammals), 90 are GAs (majority are birds, and all but 5 are vertebrates). 26,271 Polbot articles have a stub template. That leaves 6017 that are rated between Start and A (but I expect there are a fair number of articles that are currently tagged as stubs that should be reassessed as start or better).

I'm not at all surprised that the GAs/FAs are mostly birds and mammals, and I expect there's a pretty consistent pattern in which Polbot articles have been improved: birds>mammals>other vertebrates>plants in USA/UK/AU/NZ>invertebrates>plants in non-English speaking countries. Plants have 502 non-stubs and 10,149 stubs; 95.3% of Polbot plant articles are stubs while overall 81.1% of Polbot articles are stubs (I tried to run the numbers for birds, but PetScan just decided to stop working). Plantdrew (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, there is so much conjecture and unfounded opinion out there on the value of creating (taxonomic) stubs that it is very good to see some real data on the subject. I had strongly suspected that the conversion rate varied greatly between taxa, since I have often encountered frog articles that have been improved from an original Polbot stub, but this is a much higher rate than the overall average of all taxa.

Some Polbot articles will also have been changed to redirects for taxonomic synonymy reasons (unrelated to the quality of the article), while others have been subsequently moved to a different title (such as from the binomial to a vernacular name, or to a monotypic parent genus). It would also be good to determine if any of these deleted Polbot articles were later re-created. Petscan hasn't worked properly for me for some time now, thanks again for this. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Loopy30: what types of Petscan searches aren't working for you? If I go to Petscan and try to do a search for templates on a talk page, it almost always and has being doing so for a month or so now (I was surprised I was able to get a couple searches of this type to work just now). I have had little trouble with searches with-in categories, or combining a category search with a template in the article. The search awkwafaba linked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_49#5211_untagged_pages usually works, even though it is quite complex and involves a (negative) search for template on talkpages. I've been able to work around failing talk page template searches by starting with awkwafaba's search and modifying it (I've added a link to a search for WikiProject Plants banner on my userpage). I have no idea why template talk page searches work when I go through awkwafaba's version, and fail when I start with a new search on Petscan. Plantdrew (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for returns based on the presence (or absence) of certain templates on either (or both) the article page and the talk page. A long time ago, the Petscan search would often just time-out for me, even with a subcategory depth of only two. Now it is very fast, but I get zero returns even for something as simple as a search for all talk pages with the WProject:AAR template or looking for all articles containing a speciesbox template. I will look for awkwafaba's link or the one on your userpage next time I need it. I don't have the time to pester the WMF to fix these basic support tools, but it does seem to me that it should be be a higher priority than many of the bigger software projects that they are working on instead. Loopy30 (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Species redirects

In case you didn't see it, they also did the same thing over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adalbus too and still trying to make it seem like their version is what is going to be the basis for the merge by linking to diffs now that the article doesn't match what they want.[8] It's kind of like changing an RfC mid-way through too. I've put in enough text for awhile, so I'll be curious to see what you add to maybe point it out better. KoA (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kollman

Your recent change to reddish-gray mouse lemur reminded me... do we know who Kollman was? One possibility is Julius Kollmann but I can't find a 1910 or 1911 publication for his authorities. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG: I have List of authors of names published under the ICZN on my watchlist and my edit to the lemur was prompted by following up on your talk page post. Original descriptions that are old enough to be out of copyright can often be found in the Biodiversity Heritage Library. E.g. Acomys chudeaui and Microcebus griseorufus. For the Acomys, the name appears as "M. Max-Kollmann". For the Microcebus, it's "M. Max Kollmann" (note that there are two "n"s). The "M." is almost certainly an abbreviation for Monsieur (the authorship of other articles in the journals begins with "M." or "MM."). I'm not sure what to make of the hyphen in the Microcebus description; searching Google for Max Kollmann+lemur brings up other sources that seem to be treating Max as a given name, not part of a double surname. And I have no idea why MSW and many other sources in the taxonbars spell the surname with a single n. Plantdrew (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixing ping doesn't cause it to ping unless you re-sign the edit.) Well, cool that my edit spurred that. :) Ok, I'll dig into finding the right "Max Kollmann". Going after Julius wasn't getting me anywhere! - UtherSRG (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I re-signed when I fixed the ping. Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get it, but I have my chats watched. So, now we know it's Max... now to see if we can get any bio data on him. Hopefully a little more success than Pusch... - UtherSRG (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for cleaning up taxoboxes! Yupwewin (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar. Plantdrew (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carex litorosa

Hello Plantdrew, I have been getting into the Carex genus a bit recently and just started the article for Carex litorosa and about half the references are saying Jacob Whitman Bailey (including IPNI) but the other half say Liberty Hyde Bailey. I'm certain it is L.H.Bailey given it was published in Memoirs of the Torrey Botanical Club (to which Liberty Bailey is a keen contributor) in 1899 which is 40 odd years after Jacob Baileys death. Would you mind giving me your thoughts? Best Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely L.H.Bailey; see the original publication (it's in a footnote at the bottom of the page, and I'm a little surprised that a short footnote is sufficient to establish a species name even by 1889 standards). It should be a red flag when IPNI and POWO are in disagreement; the database ID # for a POWO record is the same as an IPNI record. If there's disagreement that means one of the records has been changed since POWO was created. Fully standardized unique author abbreviations are a pretty recent thing. While there is a long history of mostly standardized, usually unique author abbreviations, older sources omitting initials from a surname that should (by current standards) have initials isn't particularly surprising. IPNI probably produced their record following a source that omitted the initials, and at some point that was corrected in POWO. Plantdrew (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to poke IPNI to inform them of their error? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "Contact us about this record" button on every record which starts an email. I haven't contacted Kew about errors in any of their databases; Peter coxhead has done so for me in cases he and I have discussed. Plantdrew (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I will rest easy then and let them know. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bromeliaceae taxoboxes

I think I have now converted all the manual taxoboxes for Bromeliaceae taxa to automated ones. The articles where I have made the conversion have been moved to the name in PoWO or, in the few cases where they differ, sometimes to the name in the Encyclopaedia of Bromeliads. However, there are quite a few articles with Speciesbox templates at the wrong genus (e.g. not in Karawata, Ronnbergia and Wittmackia, and those at Cryptanthus#Former species). My enthusiasm for moving articles is somewhat low right now! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! My enthusiasm for moving articles (or at least doing so properly, i.e. adding synonyms and a reference for the synonyms) is generally low. A significant number of the plant articles with manual taxoboxes should be moved, but I've lacked the enthusiasm to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can help, but it may be a few weeks before I have finished going through the subordinate taxa in Pelodryadidae and Phyllomedusidae (both now classified as subfamilies of Hylidae), and then Multicrustacea (following the clade Hexanauplia --> Class Thecostraca). Loopy30 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If y'all wanna set up a "mini-RM/TR", I'll have some time this week to do a bunch of moves. Otherwise I can do them after Thanksgiving here in the US. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases I can move the articles myself. The barrier is updating synonyms with a source, changing article text, and potentially needing to update a list of species in a genus article. And that really isn't a very big barrier, but it is significant when there are tens of thousands of articles with manual taxoboxes that don't need to be moved (my efforts in recent years have been focused on implementing speciesbox where moves are not needed). I'll work on compiling a list of moves I can't do myself, as well as moves that I lack the enthusiasm to do the necessary updates. Plantdrew (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that the issue isn't the actual move, which is trivial, but the need to update the article: synonyms, the text, references, taxonbar parameter(s), and categories. The redirects need to be checked and fixed. And then there is the genus article, as you say. (And sometimes the Wikidata item doesn't exist or needs fixing.) I have an Excel spreadsheet which generates many of the changes to a stub article from a few PoWO input details, but it still takes me 10-15 minutes to move and completely fix one stub article, and longer for a fuller article. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm aware that Pitcairnioideae needs to be split into multiple subfamilies. I'm doing some work on this, but discrepancies in the genera recognized by the Encycl. of Bromeliads (needed for the subfamily placement) and PoWO make this not as straightforward as I first thought. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a quick comparison of POWO and EoB and found the following differences in recognised genera:

recognised in EoB (but not POWO)
- in subfamily Bromelioideae
  - Pseudaechmea [Synonym of Billgergia in POWO]
  - Ursulaea [Synonym of Aechmea in POWO]
- in subfamily Navioideae
  - Brewcaria [Synonym of Navia in POWO]
- in subfamily Tillansioideae, tribe Vrieseeae, subtribe Cipuropsidinae
  - Josemania [Synonym of Cipuropsis in POWO]
  - Mezobromelia [Synonym of Cipuropsis in POWO]
recognised in POWO (but not EoB)
- Ayensua [synonym of Brochinia in EoB, so would be placed in Brocchinioideae] – no longer accepted by PoWO as of 5 December 2022.
- Hylaeaicum [a search in EoB finds a page that is not linked in the taxonomy (no permalink), which links to a 2021 paper recognising the genus as part of the Aechmea alliance, so it would be placed in Bromelioideae]
- ×Niduregelia [no search result in EoB, but World Plants places it in Subfamily Bromelioideae]

I think this would allow placement of POWO genera in subfamilies without an original research or synthesis. — Jts1882 | talk 13:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882: yes, I'd found all of the above (tho' I've generally ignored the nothogenera, of which there are some more). I'm currently working on Hylaeaicum (which is recognized as a genus in EoB, just not placed in a subfamily); all the Hylaeaicum species articles need moving.

EoB seems to maintain some distinctions supported in the primary literature, whereas PoWO has its usual more "lumping" stance, so where EoB splits and PoWO lumps, I've generally followed EoB. Some of the genus articles you listed above still need the alternative taxonomic view presented in the text. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Hylaeaicum species articles is tedious, I've found, because the Wikidata items haven't been set up for this genus, so need creating. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've finished all the currently necessary moves, etc. in Bromeliaceae. For the record, I've noted the current differences between PoWO and EoB at Talk:Bromeliaceae#PoWO and EoB differences. I have some queries outstanding on the orthography of specific epithets (e.g. Neoregelia kerryi where sources that have "kerryae" are wrong). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hypolytrum nemorum

Saw that IPNI lists the arthority as C.B.Clarke, but POWO lists it as (Vahl)Spreng. Which one is right?Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 05:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IPNI has both Hypolytrum nemorum (Vahl) Spreng. (1824) and Hypolytrum nemorum C.B.Clarke (1894). POWO links to the first, while Wikidata (and the taxonbar) links to the latter, possibly because of priority. Wikidata states Sprenger (1824) as the authority so I think the IPNI identifier needs editing. — Jts1882 | talk 13:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leomk0403 and Jts1882: if you follow it through further, it's quite complicated. The original Clarke source has "H. nemorum (P. Beauv.) C. B. Clarke", with a reference to "Hypaelyptum P. Beauv." IPNI has an entry at "Hypaelyptum nemorum (Vahl) P.Beauv.", of which the basionym is "Schoenus nemorum Vahl (1794)". So I think the C.B.Clarke chain should actually be Schoenus nemorum Vahl (1794) → Hypaelyptum nemorum (Vahl) P.Beauv. (1810) (I think an improper change of spelling by Palisot de Beauvois) → Hypolytrum nemorum (Vahl) C.B.Clarke (1894), over which Hypolytrum nemorum (Vahl) Spreng. (1824) has precedence.

I agree the Wikidata item needs the IPNI identifier changed, which I've done. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apiaceae

As there are many manual taxoboxes in Apiaceae, I've had a quick look at the family. List of Apiaceae genera is well out-of-date, so I thought I would consider updating it using GRIN. It's possible, though not straightforward, to extract genera and subfamily/tribe placements from GRIN (by combining downloadable spreadsheets). However, there are some significant issues:

PoWO and GRIN differ substantially on the genera recognized: at a first pass, 399 are common, 45 in PoWO only and 63 in GRIN only.
GRIN leaves 69 of its 462 genera unplaced as to subfamily, and a further 51 unplaced as to tribe within Apioideae.
If a list used PoWO genera and GRIN placements, without checking synonyms, only 303 of PoWO's 444 genera would have a GRIN placement.

At this point, I'm not sure what to do. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the subfamily and tribal placements at World Plants (see the linear sequence). Unfortunately the source is unclear so I can't tell if this is a old or new treatment. However, there is a table in Clarkson et al (2021) listing a "current classification" with subfamilies, tribes and subtribes (although without genera), which seems similar to the World Plants treatment. — Jts1882 | talk 13:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882: the problem for me with the World Plants listing is that it includes things like "Subfamily Platysace clade" and "Subtribus Cervaria subgroup", which I wouldn't want to use. I haven't checked how the genera match, although I note that Clarkson et al. (2021) say there are 466, way more than PoWO and more than GRIN. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of stuck with Apiaceae. I implemented automatic taxoboxes in Apioideae following Downie 2010 [9] where Downie had defined formal tribes/subtribes, but I haven't attempted to address manual taxoboxes where Downie had informal clades. I realized a few days ago that I had overlooked Magee ([10]) which is mentioned in a "Note Added in Proof" at the end of Downie's paper; Magee covers tribes for a few basal genera. APWeb mentions Mousavi 2021 ([11]), but on skimming it, I'm not seeing anything that goes beyond Downie. I just checked "The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants vol. 15" (Plunkett 2018 (edited by Kubitzki) out from the library. This is the source for Clarkson's 466 genera; it only goes to subfamily, but does have some genera placed to subfamily that are unplaced in GRIN. GRIN seems to stand alone in not recognizing Saniculoideae.

Estopedist1 created a bunch of articles for genera with automatic taxoboxes where the parent is just Apiaceae (in spite of Downie and/or GRIN having a tribal placement). I should go through those and refine the parent.

At this point I'm feeling inclined to ignore any of Downie's clades that would correspond to subtribes; this seems to be the approach followed by GRIN (e.g. Downie has an Arracacia Clade and a Perennial Endemic North American clade with tribe Selineae, but GRIN just lists everything under Selineae). I see World Plants has Artediinae published here in 2019 instead of Downie's Artedia Clade; there may be some other clades that have been formally named recently.

Anyway, I guess I'll do a pass refining parents for Estopedist1's articles, doing automatic taxoboxes for Magee's basal tribes, and checking World Plants for any recently named tribes/subtribes. After that, I'll think about doing automatic taxoboxes that omit Downie's "subtribe" level clades. Plantdrew (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I think that is just a quirk of how they enter it in the World Plants database. If you look at Table 1 in Clarkson et al (2021) they have the traditional four subfamilies plus three groups under incertae sedis (Platysace clade, Klotzschia and Hermas ), which they say may deserve subfamily recognition when more work is done. World Plants incorporates these as subfamily Platysace clade, subfamily Klotzschi clade and subfamily Hermas clade. Similarly the clades in tribe column of Table 1 in Clarkson appear as oddly named tribes in World Plants (e.g. Tribus Physospermopsis clade). Of the tribes of Apioideae there is a very close match between World Plants and Table 1 in Clarkson, with only a few differences. The genera placed for the first time in Clarkson et al 2021 are placed correctly in World Plants (e.g. Ladyginia in Subtribus Glaucosciadium clade of Tribus Scandiceae). While I wouldn't use subfamily Platysace clade as part of the classification, I think the World Plants listing should be reliable for assigning genera to the tribal groups (formal tribes and informal clades). — Jts1882 | talk 17:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shit. I just realized I made a link to ResearchGate's copy of Downie's 2001 paper in all(?) of the taxonomy templates where I was trying to reference the 2010 paper. And the templates have been copied to other language editions of Wikipedia. Plantdrew (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The large discrepancy between the genera in World Plants and in PoWO still bothers me. Whatever source is chosen, the taxonomy templates and List of Apiaceae genera should match. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the list and the templates should match. I guess there are a couple issues; reconciling POWO's genera with the source used for infrafamily classification, and dealing with discrepancies in infrafamily classification between sources that have it (World Plants/GRIN/Downie). (a third issue is dealing with genera that Downie identifies as polyphyletic). I guess I've been more focused on the second issue and you're more focused on the first.

Note to self: Krubera is in Coriandreae with the taxonomy template sourced to iNaturalist (AND World Plants also has it in Coriandreae); Downie lists it and several other genera in brackets in the Opopanax Clade; I'm not sure what the brackets mean. Also, I've fixed the ResearchGate links alphabetically up to Oenantheae (but haven't yet done any genera within that tribe) Plantdrew (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:, reviewing what I've done previously , and where I'd left Apioideae following those efforts, I basically was strictly following Downie where that was in agreement with GRIN regarding genus placement to tribes. Where List of Apiaceae genera (presumably mostly following GRIN) upmerges Downie's subtribe level clades to tribes (or tribe level clades to "not assigned to a tribe" in Apioideae), I'd left manual taxoboxes in place in my earlier efforts. NCBI recognizes Downie's clades. GRIN and NCBI are the primary taxonomic databases that bother to record infrafamilial classifications. I'm not excited about enshrining Apioideae clades in automatic taxoboxes per Downie/NCBI, but I'm also not excited about enshrining GRIN's upmerges of informal clades. Plantdrew (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're in agreement that right now there isn't a good source to use for infrafamilial ranks in the genus list. I'm tempted to use subfamilies only, but there's also the issue of differences in accepted genera. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Counts

As Jts1882 suggested looking at the classification in World Plants, I spent some time adding them to my Apiaceae spreadsheet. The problem remains, for me, the large discrepancy between the genera listed in the three sources. According to my calculations, in GRIN + PoWO + World Plants, the total number of genus names is 527. However, only 389 (74%) occur in all three sources; 59 (11%) occur in two but not the third; and 79 (15%) occur only in one. The closest agreement is between PoWO and World Plants, which between them list 480 genus names, of which 422 (88%) occur in both. A conservative approach for the List of Apiaceae genera might be to use PoWO as the source of genera (as usual it lumps, and has the smallest number of genus names, 444) and to use only the formal tribal ranks in World Plants, leaving the rest unplaced as to tribe within subfamily.

Thoughts? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about using POWO for genera.

World Plants has some problems. World Plants has "Tribus Azorelleae" and "Tribus Azorella clade", with Azorella in the clade. Surely the clade should be treated as a subtribe, and if Azorelleae is recgonized as a tribe, it must include Azorella. Are the other "Tribus clades" in Azorelloideae actually "subtribes"? Is Azorelleae the only tribe in Azorelloideae? I'm not sure. World Plants also has "Tribus Perennial North American clade", which includes the genera in Downie's "Perennial Endemic North American Clade" (as well as some additional genera). And Downie includes the "Perennial Endemic North American Clade" in Selineae.

I'm fine with leaving genera in informal clades unplaced as to tribe within subfamily. I'm not OK with doing that based solely on World Plants. Azorella belongs in Azorelleae if that tribe is recognized, and shouldn't be left unplaced to tribe with Azorelloideae. "Perennial North American" genera should probably be in Selineae, following Downie (does World Plants have a source that shows that the Perennial North American clade is NOT included in Selineae?). Plantdrew (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't looked into the details of World Plants subfamilial classifications, but, yes, there are too many oddities to use without considerable cross-checking. A problem with Downie et al. (2010) is that the hierarchy given in the paper is only indicated by indentation. So on pp. 119–120, for example, is the "Perennial Endemic North American Clade" included within the "Arracacia Clade" or not? Some of the issues in the World Plants listing look to me as though they are caused by not fully or correctly handling the indentation (which isn't so easy to automate). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An unchecked list of genus names accepted by PoWO and classified by GRIN is now at User:Peter coxhead/Work/Apiaceae. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yeah, "Perennial Endemic North American Clade" is slightly more indented than "Arracacia Clade" in Downie's table, but I assume it would be stated in the text if it was a subclade (obviously I could look up other papers to see what the situation actually is). Realizing World Plant is presenting a linear sequence, I guess Azorelleae includes the "Azorella clade" and the "Bowlesia clade", but not the "Diposis clade". But that's not anything that is clearly stated (a similar issue is that World Plants has a "Hymenidium clade" that doesn't include Hymenidium, but in this case the group that includes Hymenidium is nowhere near the clade in the sequence). So cross-checking World Plants is needed.

I took a look at your work page. All of the GRIN genera that are unplaced to subfamily are placed in Apioideae by Plunkett except for: Brachyscias and Homalosciadium in Mackinlayoideae; Klotzschia in Azorelloideae; and Dactylaea isn't mentioned at all (also, Plunkett spells Xatardia as Xatatia). The status of the POWO genera not in GRIN in Plunkett is too complex to summarize, but I could add notes to your work page if you'd like. Plantdrew (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a practical plan. Using POWO for genera is consistent with treatment of other angiosperm families and World Plants does seem the most up-to-date database with an infrafamiliar classification, although it has a few quirks. Here are a few observations:

Some tribes are straightforward. For instance POWO and WP recognised the same five genera in Aciphylleae as Downie et al 2010.
Then you have tribes like Smyrnieae where WP adds a number of genera: Ligusticum and Tamamschjania, which POWO recognise, along with Coristospermum, Katapsuxis, and Cynapium, which POWO doesn’t
World Plants does seem to be trying to use natural groups, even when formal names haven't been given. This leads to the strange constructs such Subfamily Platysace clade, Tribus Physospermopsis clade and Subtribus Acronema clade. I suspect this is mainly a limitation in the software and database structure.
Some the names chosen are a bit strange, e.g. the use of both Azorelleae and Azorella clade, mentioned above. The division of Azorelloideae into four four lineages is well established. Anderson et al (2006) has Azorella clade, Bowlesia clade, Astericium clade and Diposis bulbocastanum, and the three clades are supported in Clarkson et al (2021). The Tribus Azorelleae in WP seems to correspond to the Astericium clade, so why they opted for Azorelleae is a mystery. A few genera are moved between the "tribes" in WP relative to Anderson et al (2006) but a newer source is not given.
The treatment of polyphyletic genera is also unusual, again I think because they try to use natural groups. So Ligusticum is divided into four “genera”: Ligusticum L. (with the type species only), Ligusticum L. s.lat. (for most species; an odd use of use of s.lat.) and Ligusticum p.min.p. (twice). All four turn up as Ligusticum in the dropdown list on the main page, but are listed with these names in the linear sequence.
Another quirk is that WP treats the "Perennial North American clade" as a tribe rather than part of tribe Selineae (the indent in Downie looks like a sister group to me and Clarkson et al (2021) shows them as a clade within Selineae).

Incidentally, Ligusticum scoticum seems to be the type species of Ligusticum according to most sources and the Wikipedia genus article, but it’s not recognised by POWO (they have Ligusticum scothium). The Wikipedia article is at Ligusticum scoticum, with a taxonbar linking to scothicum POWO page. Is this an error or a name dispute? — Jts1882 | talk 17:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882: IPNI has scothicum, and this is definitely what Linnaeus used: see here. I'm always wary about the rules for 'corrections' under the ICNafp, but I don't see grounds for the change. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882: I'm now reluctant to use World Plants because of the oddities – I understand why they may be there, but I don't think the list is a suitable source for Wikipedia. I've worked through Azorelloideae and Mackinlayoideae in the table at User:Peter coxhead/Work/Apiaceae, fixing the taxonomy templates and articles where necessary. My preference right now is to go through the "Apioideae: unplaced" entries and just assign them to Apioideae using GRIN as the ref in the taxonomy template on the grounds that this is straightforward. Quite what to put at List of Apiaceae genera is still not clear to me. If anyone else wants to tackle it, be my guest! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are some genus templates with Apioideae as a parent, even though GRIN has tribe. I agree with making templates for GRIN's "Apioideae: unplaced", but would prefer to check everything that currently has Apioideae as a parent to make sure it doesn't have a tribe in GRIN before adding a large number of templates that don't have a tribe. I'll try to work on that later today. Also, there are various Estopedist1-created articles on monotypic genera (mostly with Apiaceae as the parent) that I'd like to fix (replace Automatic taxobox with Speciesbox, add taxonbar from, replace Apiaceae genera category with Monotypic Apiaceae genera and create redirect for binomial), and I think it will be easier to find them and fix them in the process of refining the parent, rather than refining the parent and trying to find them later. Plantdrew (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just let me know what would be helpful to do. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:, I've completed checking Apioideae as a parent for anything that has a tribe in GRIN. I guess I can find Estopedist1's monotypic taxa by their presence in Category:Apiaceae (rather than a subfamily category). At this point, whatever you would like to do would be helpful; maybe work on converting manual taxoboxes to automatic in Selineae? If you want to fix any monotypic genera, this is an example of what I'm doing (along with creating the redirect for the binomial). If you want to refine parents in existing taxonomy templates without worrying about fixes for monotypy, you could go ahead and do that, and I'll work on fixes for monotypy by going through Category:Apiaceae. Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed, I'm working my way through the Selineae list at User:Peter coxhead/Work/Apiaceae as you suggested. It's taking longer than I expected because there are so many monotypic genera which have not been set up correctly. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infrafamilial classification again

I've worked through the Selineae genera listed at User:Peter coxhead/Work/Apiaceae, but the more I look into it, the less satisfied I am. The latest infrafamilial classification I've found is on p. 1255 of doi:10.1002/ajb2.1701. It seems clear that formally defined tribes cover only a fraction of the accepted subfamilies, and many uncertainties remain. GRIN seems to be in error in including genera placed in the "Sinodielsia clade" in Downie et al. (2010) within Selineae. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had looked at that. The table on page 1255 is mostly reiterating Downie's (2010) groups. They do have sequences and tribe/clade placement for some genera not sampled by Downie (at the end of the results section). The discussion section mentions some differences with Downie's classification (e.g. they found that the Acronema clade belongs in Scandiceae), but the differences aren't reflected in the table on page 1255. Plantdrew (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the table is largely based on Downie et al. (as it says) but there are some updates.

I think I've largely finished working on List of Apiaceae genera. I've managed to place a few more genera based on various sources, but the number unplaced remains too high for my comfort.

Unusually, there are some genera that GRIN lumps but PoWO splits (e.g. Kozlovia). Komaroviopsis is an interesting replacement name; I assume that it's correct that the earlier "Komaroffia" renders "Komarovia" illegitimate, although this hasn't yet been picked up by most sources (including Tropicos). Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plunkett provides subfamily placement for many genera that are unplaced to subfamily or not recognized by GRIN. Reconciling 3 lists of genera (Plunkett/POWO/GRIN) is going to be more complicated than reconciling 2 lists; I'm not sure if the headache is worthwhile. But if we're lucky, POWO and Plunkett may already substantially agree about what genera to recognize. I'll take a look at Plunkett tomorrow and see how it compares with genera recognized by POWO but not GRIN. Plantdrew (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining manual taxoboxes

According to this search, I've managed to reduce Apiaceae to 4 manual taxoboxes.

For Leaf celery, I'd prefer to treat the cultivated Apium graveolens as per Celeriac, i.e. as cultivar groups, rather than botanical varieties. I'd welcome views on whether this is the best treatment.
For Rughidia and its two species, the problem is that all sources agree the name is invalid, and it pains me to create taxonomy templates for invalid names. Maybe I'm too fussy!

Peter coxhead (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:, nice work. I had wanted to get the number of manual taxoboxes for plants under 2,000 before publishing my next update of manual/auto taxoboxes statistics by Wikiproject. With your efforts in Apiaceae, we're down to 1,970 plants with manual taxoboxes.

I'm fussy too, and wouldn't create a template for Rughidia. POWO accepts Peucedanum cordatum (the would-be basionym of R. cordata/um). The ending of R. cordata/um varies; it's cordata in NCBI, Downie et al. 2000 (cited by NCBI) and GBIF. It's cordatum in IUCN and Wikipedia. I assume Rughidia would be feminine. But at least for this species I think it can be dealt with by treating it as Peucedanum. I don't see any good solution for the supposed genus or the other species.

I think leaf celery should be treated as a cultivar group. The question is what to call it. GRIN has it as "Leaf Celery Group", but I get a grand total of 6 Google results for that, all of which seem to be based on GRIN. "Secalinum Group" returns 217 Google results (a few of which pertain to Hordeum). "Celeriac Group" has 1330 Google results and "Rapaceum Group" has 918. Cultivar/Cultivar Group names for food plants are frustrating. It's often not clear whether they have ever been formally published, and the ICNCP rules vary by date of publication (as I understand it (based on a cursory read of the ICNCP), Latinate Secalinum Group would be correct if it was actually published as a Group prior to 1966, but a non-Latinate form would be correct if no Latinate form was published before 1966). I think an article for Apium graveolens should be split from celery, with the latter rescoped to focus on the petiole vegetable (Dulce Group?), and the former providing an overview of the species and the cultivar groups for the leaf, petiole and hypocotyl vegetables (a split was previously discussed and opposed, but that was back in 2008) .

There are a number of other articles for food plant cultivars/cultivar groups with manual taxoboxes where I'm not sure what the correct name is (although I haven't necessarily looked into it much). Armenian cucumber is one of two remaining Cucurbitaceae with a manual taxobox. 6 or 7 of the 24 remaining Brassicaceae manual taxoboxes should probably be treated as cultivars or cultivar groups.

I think the concepts in the ICNCP are good, but the implementation has been poor. Clearly there can't be a central register like IPNI for cultivar names, but I believe there could be for cultivar group names.

The existing Celery article definitely needs splitting up. We should try again to get agreement to do this, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now re-proposed the split at Talk:Celery#Split proposal (again). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I've been meaning to ask you what you think about potentially using {{Infobox botanical product}} to replace the manual taxoboxes at cardamom and banana. That infobox template is barely used (9 articles) and is really designed for drugs (it has various parameters for legal status, active compounds, retail/wholesale prices). If the template is going to be used for plant products that aren't drugs, it might be useful to add some additional parameters and deprecate some of the drug-related ones (the practical legal status of cannabis on a state level in the US is now too complicated to summarize in an infobox, and the wholesale price of a kilogram of cocaine is going to be very different in a Colombian jungle than in Miami). If the template is adapted to be less drug-specific, it might be added to some other articles that lack infoboxes; e.g. kiwifruit, or other cases where en.wiki has separate articles on plant taxa and products that are differentiated on Wikidata via d:Property:P1582. Plantdrew (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting idea to try to adapt {{Infobox botanical product}} as you suggest. There's certainly a continuing problem when the English language word and concept, like "banana", doesn't properly correspond even to a cultivar group, let alone an original species. Could be made to work on complex cases like the "blackberry-raspberry" hybrids in the diagram at marionberry? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katydid

This is a common name for an insect and redirects to Tettigoniidae. It has about 100 links. There is a dab page Katydid (disambiguation) also, but searching shows there are over 1000 uses in the encyclopedia and the vast majority are about the insect. I think the insect is clearly the primary target. Some editors apparently want to move the dab to the base name. The reason is has to do with some species and sub-families also being called Katydid. But if those are within the family where Katydid redirects, the family is still a good "umbrella" target. Perhaps you could lend your expertise at Talk:Katydid_(disambiguation) MB 05:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas, Plantdrew
	Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you and yours nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and happy holidays to you. Plantdrew (talk)

Clostridium

On Clostridium, you changed the taxon box to an automatic taxon box here on Nov 21. The genus changed from Clostridium to Lachnoclostridium. An anon just deleted the automatic taxon box as removed wrong genus collateral damage sorry. I am not familiar with the subject. Would you please take a look at it? Thank you Adakiko (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adakiko: That edit was not the problem. It was a later edit at {{Taxonomy/Clostridium}} that changed the taxobox. Now fixed. Not sure why it was made, but the editor was trying to create a taxobox at Lachnoclostridium so probably an unfortunate mistake. — Jts1882 | talk 13:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]