Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants: Difference between revisions

This page has been removed from search engines’ indexes.

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant

Archives since 2011

54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 6.

A question has been raised at Talk:Rhamphospermum about if we were too quick to move species to Rhamphospermum. Using the wayback machine I’ve found that when the article was created in 2023 POWO was listing it as a valid genus, but sometime in 2024 POWO listed Mutarda as the accepted genus for four species. In the discussion on I’ve suggested that we use the older name Sinapis following the list on World Flora Online until there is greater consensus regarding the the accepted names, but I’m quite open to other points of view. I’m doing some research to see what names are being used currently in scientific papers. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WFO is just old POWO data “The record derives from wcvp (data supplied on 2024-12-20)“

So you are just comparing old and new data from the same source and creating an imaginary disagreement.

I think the confusion with Sinapis arose because Rhamphospermum was not yet typified and some of the names are synonyms of Sinapis and others of Mutarda, but now the type has been designated as Rhamphospermum arvense, it is definitely Mutarda. Weepingraf (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but doing a search for papers published in 2025 most scientists are still using names like Brassica nigra rather than Rhamphospermum nigrum or Mutarda nigra and Sinapis arvensis rather than Rhamphospermum arvense or Mutarda arvensis.

For example using Google Scholar I’ve located just five papers using Rhamphospermum arvense in 2025 and possibly over 400 using Sinapis arvensis. Similarly just 12 using the name Mutarda arvensis. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I doubt that any of those 400 deliberately chose not to follow the published change. Weepingraf (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that whatever we use, it shouldn’t be Rhamphospermum (1822), as POWO lists that as a straight synonym of Mutarda (1800). The latter was presumably overlooked in earlier versions of POWO. So either we follow current POWO and use Mutarda, or else stay with traditional and widely-used but presumably inaccurate Sinapis (for Charlock) and Brassica (for Black Mustard) – MPF (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two Wikipedia articles for Mutarda species at their old names (I’ve added pipes at Mutarda as a stopgap).

Removing Brassica nigra from Brassica leaves Brassica carinata and Brassic juncea questionable, as both are polyploids with Brassica nigra as one parent. The combination Mutarda carinata (equally questionable) has been made, but not the combination Mutarda juncea. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If interested Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Newton’s apple tree, and/or improve or disprove the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Monotropsis page here is a combined genus & species page for a monotypic genus. POWO however now accepts two species in the genus, so the page here needs dividing up. I’m not sure of the proceedure for this myself so I’ll leave it for others – MPF (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Not much information on the genus page, so I think the best procedure would be to edit the existing page into a genus page for both species and edit the redirect into a species page for Monotropsis odorata. There is a good description of the resurrected Monotropsis reynoldsiae on JSTOR at https://www.jstor.org/stable/24546165 so I can create a good start page for it as well.

I can get this done in about three hours unless there are contrary views. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! – MPF (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve created a stub on Rosa laxa Retz. I’m pretty sure that the illustrations shown at Commons Category:Rosa laxa – botanical illustrations are Rosa laxa Lindl. But there are photos at Commons Category:Rosa laxa that very well might be Rosa laxa Retz. If anybody is more confident than I, please feel free to add an image to the stub. Abductive (reasoning) 08:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d avoid them. Two are cultivated plants in a garden, so I’d be highly suspicious of them. The third is labelled “Rosa laxa microcarpa“, and is from Japan, so also not in the native range of R. laxa. POWO is down at the moment so I can’t check on the identity of “microcarpa“, as to whether it is a valid variety or subspecies of R. laxa, or something different altogether. Rather better, iNaturalist has a decent set of validly cc-licensed photos from within the cited native area; I’d be inclined to trust them far more than anything cultivated. I’ll get round to uploading some on Commons later – MPF (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Those do match the Flora of China description nicely. Abductive (reasoning) 19:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done; new pics at Commons Category:Rosa laxa, select whichever you like best. Seems to be almost all hips rather than flowers, the only Commons-valid one with flowers wasn’t ‘research grade’ and looked a bit less like other flower photos (unfortunately all cc-by-nd so ineligible) so I didn’t upload that one. – MPF (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive ah, there was one with flowers – the top pic, the flower was tiny so I didn’t see it in the thumbnail, but the other pic shows it better; added them both now – MPF (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added them to the stub. Thanks again! Abductive (reasoning) 07:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this dab page should be reformed to refer to genera or redirected to Urticeae, but I’m not certain. All five entries are species from two different genera in Urticeae. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it works better as a dab page. Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But should it list species or genera as its contents? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, if someone was to refer to a stinging nettle they would almost certainly mean Urtica dioica subsp. dioica. Stinging nettle contrasts with dead nettle (Lamium – Lamium album in particular mimics Urtica dioica vegetatively) and help nettle (Galeopsis – which doesn’t sting, but is somewhat irritant). It is not the only species present in the country (Urtica urens is an ancient introduction, and other species occur as casuals), but it is the only one known to the general public. Urtica dioica subsp. galeopsifolia is sometimes called stingless nettle (otherwise fen nettle).

nettle gives Urtica ferox as another plant that goes by the name of stinging nettle.

A problem is that stinging nettle is not the prevalent vernacular name in Britain – Urtica dioica is more usually called common nettle, or just nettle.

Urtica gracilis was until recently considered conspecific with Urtica dioica and inherits the common name from it.

A web search for a definition of stinging nettle find the majority of dictionaries give Urtica dioica; one gave Urtica as well.

The species should be retained in the dab page. There is probably a case for adding Urtica, as some usage can be found for stinging nettle being used for the genus, or even multiple genera. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve reworked the dab page. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Leaf mimicry has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 7 § Leaf mimicry until a consensus is reached. —MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Bacterial pustule has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 10 § Bacterial pustule until a consensus is reached.  Note: Your expertise is requested to determine the appropriate target for this redirect. —MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve started a discussion at Talk:Pinus ponderosa about when/if we should follow the splits in Plants of the World Online. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]