This is an archive of past discussions with User:Peter coxhead. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Conservation status of heterotypic synonyms created as articles by Polbot
I don't think it is appropriate to maintain a IUCN status for heterotypic synonyms such as Sideroxylon confertum. IUCN describes it as endemic to two provinces in Cuba. S. cubense has a much broader distribution, and hasn't been assessed by IUCN, but is presumably less threatened since it has a larger range. There are a fair number of articles with manual taxoboxes (especially in families with few remaining manual taxoboxes) that are Polbot creations that are treated as synonyms by POWO et al. It is pretty typical that these cases are narrow endemics (per the IUCN) that have been lumped into a more broadly distributed species.
I think what should happen with these, is that new articles should be written for the accepted name (when that article doesn't already exist), and the Polbot creation should be redirected, rather than moving the Polbot article to the accepted name. The history and prior content of S. confertum isn't really relevant to S. cubense, and moving resulted in an incorrect Wikidata link to the en.wiki article. I've discussed "new article and redirect existing heterotypic synonym" vs. "move" with you before, and if I remember correctly, you though that was sensible, but you had also suggested bringing that up in a larger forum.
Yes, I agree that it would have been better to do as you suggest (write a new article and redirect to it) when, as in this case, it's a case of a narrowly defined concept being subsumed into a larger one. Put it down to inadequate checking before acting. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
For Polbot creations, I think a discussion of "new article and redirect" vs. "move" is mostly relevant to plants. Most IUCN assessments are for vertebrates and plants, and vertebrates are pretty likely to already have an article for the accepted/valid name (which renders the "move" option moot). But considering "new and redirect" vs. "move" for heterotypic synonym with no existing valid/accepted article isn't limited to Polbot creations, so I think I'll raise this at TOL soon.
I'm not very sure what to do about links on lists such as List of IUCN Red List Vulnerable plants. I've edited that list a few times to correct gender suffixes of species epithets (which I had tagged with {{R from misspelling}}; and being tagged, somebody else would've eventually corrected the misspelling if I hadn't). The simplest solution is probably just to periodically regenerate that list via Wikifying an IUCN dump (as most recently happened in July 2016) and correcting any links that are blatantly wrong (piping misspellings, but not correcting the displayed spelling?), rather than eliminating any links to redirects (including lumped heterotypic synonyms, and messing around with homotypic synonyms in e.g. Rhipsalidopsis/Schlumbergera). Plantdrew (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
What I don't like is the situation now, namely that List of IUCN Red List Vulnerable plants has a link to Sideroxylon confertum but if anyone follows the link it ends up at a species that (rightly) isn't marked as vulnerable. I would prefer an entry like:
Sideroxylon confertum (now considered part of Sideroxylon cubense, not assessed as vulnerable)
@Plantdrew: so I don't deal incorrectly with Polbot articles that need moving, I've decided to work through the species articles with manual taxoboxes created by Polbot. Right now there are 364 of them. Some can't be dealt with, because the correct name isn't known or clear. Also the genus article may need an automatic taxobox. So it's going to be a slow process! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I approve of how you handled S. confertum in the S. cubense article, and your proposal for the list of vulnerable plants. I haven't worked systematically on automatic taxoboxes for Rubiaceae, a big chunk of Fabaceae and a few tribes of Asteraceae (but Vernonieae is the only large one). Genus articles will be lacking automatic taxoboxes in these families. There are 122 Polbot articles with manual taxoboxes in Rubiaceae, 90 in Fabaceae and 24 in Vernonieae. I would suggest focusing your efforts on other families where taxonomy templates should (mostly) already exist, and where articles with remaining manual taxoboxes are more likely to be synonyms. Plantdrew (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
There are a variety of reasons why I may have left Polbot created articles with manual taxoboxes in families where I've otherwise implemented automatic taxoboxes. Heterotypic synonyms with no accepted article do account for a lot of them, and are probably the hardest to deal with. Baynesia is monotypic, Baynesia lophophora needs to be merged. With Panax zingiberensis, I wasn't sure whether to implement the infrageneric classification in presented in Panax. Trianaea naeka is straightforward, but there's a statement in Trianaea that it is one of two genera in Solandreae, which isn't consistent with the classification given in Solanaceae. Plantdrew (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: I'm rapidly realizing why these articles haven't been given automated taxoboxes; most of them have substantial issues: unrecognized names in PoWO, synonyms of species with a wider distribution, etc. And that's before you get to the issue of how to classify the genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I was looking at Agasthiyamalaia pauciflora, and I think I've discovered multiple errors in POWO. The basic fix for that species on Wikipedia is to merge to the monotypic genus. POWO gives the family as Clusiaceae. The genus was described to accommodate a species formerly in Poeciloneuron, which POWO has in Pentaphylacaceae (Poeciloneuron is linked from both Calophyllaceae and Pentaphylacaceae on Wikipedia, which are in different orders). Calophyllaceae was split out from Clusiaceae. APWeb includes Poeciloneuron and Agasthiyamalaia (as a synonym of Poeciloneuron) in Calophyllaceae. I think POWO is incorrect in the family placement for both genera; Poeciloneuron in Pentaphylacaceae is straight error (species:Poeciloneuron has a note to that effect), and Agasthiyamalaia in Clusiaceae is just outdated (but may stem from the mess with Poeciloneuron). Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Agasthiyamalaia in Clusiaceae stems from the original description; see here and also the entry in IPNI, which generally just gives the original placement. IPNI also has Poeciloneuron in Clusiaceae, I assume again because this was the original placement. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2020.107041 places Poeciloneuron in Calophyllaceae: Calophylleae, but doesn't accept the move of Poeciloneuron pauciflorum to Poeciloneuron; however, they only sampled P. indicum. Of course if P. pauciflorum and P. indicum are really that different, given that only P. indicum seems to have been studied molecularly, it's in principle possible that Agasthiyamalaia pauciflora should remain in Clusiaceae. (I'm surprised PoWO accepts the transfer, since it wasn't based on a molecular phylogenetic study and PoWO editors are usually lumpers.) Govaerts is away right now according to an autoreply to an e-mail I sent about another issue, but PoWO should be notified of this problem, for sure. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
If you're contacting Govaerts, Neotatea is another one to bring up. It's Bonnetiaceae on POWO, but Calophyllaceae according to APWeb and two papers from 2011 and 2021 that I've added as sources. (However, neither paper had material to run a molecular analysis). Plantdrew (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: so for Heptapleurum heptaphyllum I followed your advice and created a new article, redirecting Schefflera rubriflora to it – Heptapleurum heptaphyllum has a very wide distribution as opposed to that claimed for the heterotypic synonym Schefflera rubriflora. I have included a note about Schefflera rubriflora. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
The classification at Phyllanthaceae follows Hoffman et al. (2006). List of Phyllanthaceae genera apparently mostly follows APWeb as of 2005. APWeb's current classification is based on Hoffman (and also incorporates Vorontsova and Hoffman's (2008) treatment of Poranthereae; Wikipedia should be following the 2008 paper for Poranthereae, but I do have a note to myself to double-check that Wikipedia is consistent there). List of Phyllanthaceae genera needs to be updated to follow Hoffman (I also have a note to myself about doing that). Plantdrew (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
NCBI follows the 2006 and 2008 papers, and apparently GRIN does as well. The taxonomy templates should all follow the 2006 paper (and the 2008 paper pending a double-check), but I made them before I was in the habit of adding references to the templates. Chonocentrum, Lingelsheimia and Heterosavia are the only genera using manual taxoboxes. Heterosavia was described in another 2008 paper authored by Hoffman, and isn't mentioned in the outdated list article nor in the lists of genera (alphabetical and by tribe) in the family article. Chonocentrum isn't placed to tribe in the 2006 paper. The Lingelsheimia article mentions possible placement in Putranjivaceae, but the 2006 paper rejects that. Plantdrew (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Peter, I fixed the cladogram disaster at Viridiplantae; there is a similar one, rather more difficult to fix (as I don't happen to have a decent tree to hand), at Archaeplastida, and I suspect there'll be others. I'll nose about to see if I can find a good recent source from which I can draw and cite a new tree. If you find others, feel free to ping me from here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Actually the conclusion of that discussion, with Reid's proposal which seems to have been broadly supported, is fine with me, and I could be seen has having followed it to the letter (though I hadn't seen it). The "long list of citations preceding the cladogram" is exactly what we all agree is unacceptable. I have no issue with pruning a published tree down to families or whatever, nor of the other minor manipulations mentioned by Reid; but mashing together a dozen different interpretations into one tree really isn't ok. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: my giving up wasn't due to the conclusion, which I too support, but the later observation that editors who had disagreed during the discussion were (at that time anyway) ignoring it, and I simply couldn't face opening it up again (plenty of other things to do). I suspect it's different now. Anyway, should there be any opposition, I will certainly support you. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Cheers. The next thing is to try to find a decent replacement cladogram that actually covers the patch in a recent source. The current tree in Archaeplastida goes from Diaphoretickes as the root, which is a big ask for any one source really. Starting from Archaeplastida would be easy... Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I've fixed it by divide-and-rule. The Archaeplastida tree is, I hope, fairly uncontroversial. That leaves the 'external' phylogeny starting from Diaphoretickes, which is a much smaller tree, and most of the long list of sources don't even apply to it. So the mess is much reduced. As to whether the remaining small tree is even vaguely correct ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: On a related note, aboout the Frankenstein cladogram in animals, there is a consensus tree in The Invertebrate Tree of Life (Giribet & Edgecombe, 2020). This type of review tree seems a more appropriate "cladogram" for the top level animal article, which needs an overview rather than the latest phylogenetic hypothesis. There might be alternatives, but a consensus review tree seems better than an amalgamation of recent phylogenetic works (even if they passed WP rules). — Jts1882 | talk20:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I've got your sub-page on my watchlist and was wondering what criteria you were using to select the most recent batch of articles. Plantdrew (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: I downloaded the list of Polbot species articles with manual taxoboxes and set up a list on the sub-page with a link to the taxonomy template. My thought was that it would be easy to convert the manual taxoboxes if there was already a taxonomy template, so I removed all those with a redlink to the taxonomy template. However, as you can see from the work I've done to date, it's often not easy, because the articles need moving. (Reinforcing the comment I made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Accuracy of the IUCN Red List for plants.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Some of the species aren't linked from the genus page (i.e., the list of species needs to be updated (or completed)); Pluchea obovata, Ruschia namusmontana, Dialium lopense. I've largely worked genus by genus, going through the listed species when implementing automatic taxoboxes, so there are certainly cases where my initial pass through a family left species articles with manual taxoboxes because they weren't listed in the genus article.
In your earlier round of working on Polbot manual taxoboxes you noted that Melhania milleri and Grewia milleri weren't in POWO, but you gave M. milleri a speciesbox today; both are from Socotra, and there are several Socotran Polbot creations in Category:Undescribed plant species. And I think that points to another potential issue with IUCN Red List accuracy. Maytenus sp. nov. A is obviously undescribed, but I'd guess the Melhania and Grewia haven't actually been described either and I'd be wary of an Socotran Polbot article that isn't in IPNI/POWO (but I've probably done speciesboxes for a few without realizing it).
Monotypy is an issue for a significant number of remaining manual taxoboxes (and not just Polbot creations), and that can manifest in various ways. Genera that aren't monotypic (per species recognized by POWO) that Wikipedia claims are, genera that are/were monotypic but are treated as synonyms of polytypic genera by POWO, and cases where Wikipedia has separate articles for genus and species (Kalappia celebica/Kalappia is on your list, and you gave Zenia insignis a speciesbox, but Zenia (plant) is monotypic). Plantdrew (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I thought I'd checked each species against PoWO, but in the case of Melhania milleri, I clearly hadn't. I'll try to be more careful.
Scrap the infrageneric classification in the Astragalus list? The Arizona site only existed as an archive in 2013, and the (archive of the) front page says it was last updated in 1999 (perhaps some subpages were updated since then, but I'm not spotting anything in the bibliography page after 1999). If there isn't more recent infrageneric classification, I don't think Wikipedia needs to preserve the information from an ancient website which can't account for 24 years of new species being described. Plantdrew (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Scrapping it does seem to be the only solution. I looked around with Google Scholar, but predictably in such a large genus, I can't see that there has been any overall molecular study of Astragalus, only individual sections, some of which aren't in the list (e.g. there's a reference in the article which includes sect. Dissitiflori, but the section isn't in the article). The articles I've seen all say something like this 2021 paper: "the phylogenetic relationships within the genus are still poorly known" (doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2020.107025). Peter coxhead (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
My reading of the Arizona site is that the subgenus/phalanx and sections delimitations are based on Barneby (1964) for North America and Podlech (1986) for Old World, with no sections for South America. New species may have been described but would have be assigned to the sections already described. There is a 3 volume, 2500 page work by Podlech published in 2013: A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Astragalus L. (Leguminosae) in the Old World. I'm not sure if this is a new work or a republished compilation. It does seem a shame to abandon the sectional work, which may not have been updated, but would still represents the current state of knowledge. I wouldn't put any sectional information in the taxoboxes without new sources, but feel the list article may have some value as long as it is properly sourced. A long alphabetical list isn't more useful. — Jts1882 | talk08:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
@Jts1882: it's not clear to me that it does represent the "current state of knowledge". Looking at articles in the last 5 years via Google Scholar, sure, people refer to the sections in the old classifications, but often to say that they aren't monophyletic, as do many of the ridiculously long list of references at the end of the opening paragraph. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
@Jts1882: the other issue is the sheer incompleteness and inaccuracy of the list. There are 1082 species in the article, of which only 865 appear to be in PoWO, so there are 217 synonyms or otherwise outdated names. But PoWO has 3066 accepted species, so only 865/3066 = 28% of the PoWO species are in the article under their correct names. Why is this useful? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't think monophyly is an major issue. If that is the latest taxonomy available for the sections and it is sourced, then that is the best we can do until there is an updated taxonomy. However, if there are many conflicting sectional divisions that would be a problem.
On the other hand, inaccuracy is a major problem. I did look at the North American species and it did seem to following the listing in the archived of Michael Sanderson's Arizona site. The source(s) for the Old World Species is less clear, as Sanderson's site just lists sections. There are some more recent regional revisions, e.g. Podlech (2008) for 112 European (non-Soviet) species, which might be used to address incompleteness.
The synonymy seems a bigger problem, as that means there would need to be much more work to make the list compatible with POWO accepted species. There is also the question of whether taking old section listings and modifying them according to current POWO accepted species might make the list too much of a synthesis.
Overall, I feel a list of 3000 species needs breaking up. Over 250 sections is too fragmentary to be useful (unless clearly defined) and there isn't even agreement on the number of subgenera. So I think I agree, the list as it is too incomplete and its not worth the effort of updating unless there is a clear recent source for guidance. A list of POWO accepted species with articles might be more useful. — Jts1882 | talk16:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Actually, the work to make our articles agree with PoWO isn't as large as it seems. Yes, there appear to be 217 synonyms or otherwise outdated names listed, but only 12 of these are blue links, i.e. have articles.
There's a draft of a straightforward alphabetical list at User:Peter coxhead/Draft List of Astragalus species; see the "Probable synonyms" section. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion about providing a valid reference about the origin name of the neem tree's genus. I have found one and added it.Bsskchaitanya (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bsskchaitanya: I moved the material around, because the scientific name is already discussed in the Taxonomy section (which is where it belongs). The meaning of neem seems to belong at the very beginning, where the word is first used. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Reply to your comment on the merger proposal for "Amphimenia neapolitana"
That "mirror" is for if another species of Amphimenia gets discovered. I know that monotypic taxa should not have a seperate article for their one species. IdfbAn (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
No worries. The set of articles is still in a bit of a muddle, as I slowly move those left in Dendroseris. I've also only just moved the genus article to Sonchus subg. Dendroseris, which I should really have done first to clarify the taxonomy. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Template:Taxonomy/Mystroptera
Sorry, my mistake, I didn't realise mirorder was placed between magnorder and superorder by some people. I ought to have used mirordo-mb (for McKenna and Bell) instead ...though this may be unimportant in the end, since maybe the template itself is entirely unnecessary as nothing actually uses it currently. I don't think Mystroptera is even used in the literature anymore. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@Monster Iestyn: my mistake too; even though I wrote the code that checks rank ordering, I'd forgotten that there are "-mb" variants. I should just have changed the rank to "mirordo-mb" as you've now done. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@Festucalex: I made the move because it seemed to me absolutely clear cut, and risked Wikipedia becoming a source for a vernacular name, but as I first supported the move, I am an "involved editor", so I think I am not supposed to close the request. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, you shouldn't have moved it in the first place. If you're not supposed to close it, you're not supposed to move it. 〜 Festucalex • talk09:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The move is justified because there is no source for a vernacular name and the name most used (i.e. that expected by WP:COMMON) is the scientific name. This is a clear cut move that any editor can make. Once someone moves the article they become an involved editor and shouldn't close any further discussion of the issue. — Jts1882 | talk09:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I didn't realize that putting Rancho Gordo on the bean page amounts to advertising. Thanks for catching that! I'm a bit confused though on what exactly constitutes advertising. I mean, the other link, abeancollectorswindow, also sells beans so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Anyway, I noticed you're a veteran in botanical editing and I thought I might introduce myself, since we might cross paths again. I am just an amateur gardener, though I have lots of training in scientific research and teaching, so I know how to navigate primary sources and peer-reviewed papers (which is where I tend to get most of my info from; thank goodness for academic access). Nevertheless, as a newbie, I might need serious help (and I probably shall bother you for advice in the future). Please understand that should I mess up some edits it is surely not out of malevolence, stubborn ignorance, or ulterior motives. English is also not my mother tongue, so I could use a native's eye there as well. All in all, thanks for the work you do on Wikipedia! WikiUser70176 (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@WikiUser70176: it's always a matter of judgement as to whether a commercial website is acceptable as an external link (or even as a source). Is there enough useful factual information, like a list of cultivars with illustrations and descriptions, to balance the advantage we would give one business over another? I thought that in this case there wasn't. "If in doubt, leave it out" seems to me to be the best approach.
I will thank you too Peter Coxhead for helping me understand the purpose of Wikipedia and why sometimes a topic with its information doesn’t sound correct on Wikipedia (in my head)!
Anyway, do you mind if I list the countries of each division that I believe will always make the most sense to me? 🙂 I would like to do all divisions just for fun!Craig Lungren (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
@Craig Lungren: it's not a question of what I mind, but whether there are reliable sources for different lists of countries. We should, of course, report what all reliable sources say. Whether it makes sense to us is another matter! As a plant editor, I have to work with the definition of "Northern America" that is briefly explained at World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions#7 Northern America (and the reciprocal definition of "Southern America"), which still seems a bit strange to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I have almost finished the task of redirecting the Corunastylis species. The difficulty I now have is in redirecting the Corunastylis article itself. According to PoWO, C. obovata is now known as Prasophyllum obovatum and C. unica as Prasophyllum unicum. Is it acceptable then, to simply redirect the Corunastylis article to Genoplesium? Is there a better alternative? Gderrin (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
@Gderrin: the question is whether Corunastylis deserves treating as a historically recognized genus as per Category:Historically recognized angiosperm genera or should just be redirected. My view is that the first approach should be used sparingly, only when the old genus name has some real use. For example, Sansevieria is still widely used in horticulture, although it has been sunk into Dracaena, so an article seems right to me. If Corunastylis is still used in enough Australian sources, then treat it as a historically recognized genus: remove the taxobox, change the category, and explain why most of its species have been sunk into Genoplesium. If not, redirect. I trust your judgement. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
@Kudiophi clopsvimbi: feel free to correct the section. I don't think the exact details of any classification are relevant in an article on the history of botany, which should discuss the general approach and principles. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Peter, you recently reverted an uncited edit by Videsh Ramsahai to the cladogram at Fern. The user has made similar edits to numerous other cladograms... which might warrant reversal as well. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
There are two issues here, I think. The first is what the latest evidence supports; I believe that at least some of Videsh Ramsahai's edits are ok for that, but they haven't always updated the reference(s), which is wrong. The second is when the article is saying what older sources said, in which case the change I reverted was not correct. I don't have time to work on ferns right now, unfortunately. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi there Peter! Hope all is good. Your profile looks impressive btw :-) I just wanted to ask you about the revert you did on one of my edits. I am trying to improve and want to understand how to approach updating scientific articles in the future. I am referring to this page: Huperzia serrata
Anyway, I was surprised you said the sources don't meet Wikipedia's criteria. This link in specific that I had added is a scientific study from a book: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/huperzia-serrata. The website as well is a very notable and credible website. I am not sure I can find a more reliable source to be honest. The sentence I added expanded on the topic and added value to the page (I believe). In all cases, let me know your reasoning and thanks in advance! SeriousBuilder (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
@SeriousBuilder: please read WP:MEDRS. There are stricter criteria for the acceptability of sources for medical information, because of the risk of harm to readers. I recommend asking Zefr if you are unsure – he's always my "goto" on these issues. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't see the point of a parent taxonomy template for a single unassigned genus. Just set the parent in {{Taxonomy/Lodderena}} to Trochoidea. An incertae sedis template only makes sense when there are a lot of unassigned taxa, e.g. when a large taxon is under revision. The article Trochoidea (unassigned) is even more pointless. There is nothing there that can't be better explained in Lodderena. — Jts1882 | talk16:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I've changed the parent. If there are no objections in a reasonable time, are you able to merge the articles? (I'm not experienced in writing taxon articles; I just look for and fix anomalies.) Certes (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@Certes: I've been away and not on Wikipedia for a while, but back now. I agree with Jts1882 about the article Trochoidea (unassigned) – this isn't a taxon, but an absence of one, and should not have an article. But I disagree about having "Family: incertae sedis" in the taxobox – family is a major Linnaean rank and would be expected in a taxobox. So I would create Template:Taxonomy/Incertae sedis/Trochoidea. Peter coxhead (talk)
Thanks to you both. Can you sort out the taxa, or can I help further (though I suspect so far I've just raised problems...)? Certes (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I've commented there. Part of the problem seems to me to be that the "Taxa named by ..." categories were never properly discussed at the relevant Tree of Life WikiProjects and so never sharply defined as to their meaning and use. As a different example of an issue, "Category:Taxa named by ..." is regularly categorized into "Category:Botanical taxa by author" or "Category:Animal taxa by author", but this doesn't really make sense unless the base categories are also separated (e.g. "Category:Botanical taxa named by ..."). What about biologists who authored the names of both animals and plants? Suppose a biologist authored the names of hundreds of plants and one animal? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks very much Peter. I agree with you about the problems with these categories and wish there was a simple way of avoiding the difficulties when well-meaning, but less experienced editors of plant articles don't understand those problems. Gderrin (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
@Cs california: Hm... Echinopsis macrogona is treated by PoWO as a synonym for the whole species Trichocereus macrogonus, whereas Echinopsis peruviana is treated as a synonym of Trichocereus macrogonus var. macrogonus. I agree that we should have a separate article for Trichocereus macrogonus var. pachanoi, but I guess we don't want separate articles for Trichocereus macrogonus and Trichocereus macrogonus var. macrogonus, so there will have to be a merger as well as a move.
Do you accept the the ruling by Report of the General Committee: 18 in 2017 see here that conserves the name and type of Rhaponticum Ludwig, Inst. Reg. Veg., ed. 2: 123. (1757)? If not why not. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Of course. It seems that in May 2023 Plants of the World Online had not been updated to take account of this considerably earlier decision, but has been now. So the article Rhaponticum needs to be fixed – and all the articles that are affected by the decision. (There's still a problem at the PoWO entry: if you follow the link to IPNI it takes you to Rhaponticum Vaill. instead of Rhaponticum Ludw. I've told them.)
So I have all the Trichocereinae genus are now consistent with Kew POWO. But There are a few small changes to be made that require moving and preserving the edit history:
@Cs california:Hopefully this is more consistent and easier to deal with going forward – well, maybe, but the taxonomy of the Trichocereinae seems to be confused/confusing, and names get changed back and forth. For example, I first acquired Chamaecereus silvestrii under this name, and then changed my labels to Echinopsis chamaecereus; now I'll have to change them back!
The discussion at Echinopsis § Taxonomy needs fixing as well, since it says that Trichocereus and Lobivia have been subsumed into Echinopsis, but this seems to have reverted as well.
Thanks again they also did changes to the tribes apparently everything is in Cereeae and that is broken up into 3 subtribes Cereinae, Trichocereinae, Rebutiinae. I changed some of it but it still needs work--Cs california (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@Cs california: I changed the genus list for Cereinae at Cereeae to match a recent source. There are columns waiting to be filled in. As there's an article for Trichocereinae, then either Cereinae should be a separate article, or all three subtribes should be dealt with at Cereeae. I don't mind which.
I agree I have kind of refrained from moving stuff around because I am having an issue finding sources I can cite that are not behind a paywall --Cs california (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
@Cs california: actually I can't find many recent (i.e. last 5 years) papers on the phylogeny/classification of Cereeae, except the one I found for Cereinae. (If you haven't already joined, the Wikipedia Library is a way to get round many paywalls.)
There are some other issues:
Weingartia is a synonym of Rebutia in PoWO. Although there seems to be good evidence that a broadly circumscribed Rebutia is not monophyletic, more recent papers seem to say "need more evidence". I'm not sure whether to leave it or not.
@Cs california: although I copied the style used at Trichocereinae and Rebutiinae when I created Cereinae, I really don't think giving a list of species in pages on ranks above genus is a good idea. The problem is that the list is necessarily present on the genus page, so is redundantly duplicated, in these cases on the subtribe pages. Thus I updated the species list at Melocactus and then had to change the one at Cereinae. Since the two lists have different formats, one can't just be copied to the other. I've updated other species lists on the genus pages and forgotten to update the subtribe pages.
I would prefer the tables on the subtribe pages just to have two columns "Image" and "Genus", although I could live with "Distribution" as well, I guess.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Rhododendron, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Just granted an edit request at the {{Taxonomy/Passeriformes}} template. There is a reference given on the talk page for correcting the spelling of the parent. I tried to find a way to include the reference in the box called "Parent's taxonomic references:" and was unable to do so. I tried |authority=, |parent_authority= and various forms of |parent_refs= but was unable to fill the box with the reference citation. Would appreciate your help as I see you did a lot of work with the {{Don't edit this line}} template family. Since I know that some editors appear to dislike refs in taxoboxes, I thought I'd ask you whether or not the ref should even be included, and if so, how to do it? P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there10:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: I'm very much in favour of at least one ref in taxonomy templates that supports the |parent= parameter; it may be redundant to the refs in the relevant article, but does show that it's not just some editor's opinion. (But I admit to being guilty of not always supplying one when I create a taxonomy template.)
Thank you beyond words, Peter! I added the ref to the parent's page and sure enough, it automatically appeared in the parent's-ref field on the child page. Excellent! Don't know how it works, but it does work beautifully! Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there11:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
By the way, it's a little fiddly to set up correct wikilinks for plants and fungi whose ranks are below species. In such names, the 'connecting term' is not italicized. So for Pleurotus eryngii var. ferulae you have to put [[Pleurotus eryngii var. ferulae|''Pleurotus eryngii'' var. ''ferulae'']] to produce Pleurotus eryngii var. ferulae. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I got it. Latin names are used in scientific studies. I tried hard to find the Latin and Turkish names of many weeds growing in the mountains in the eastern region of Turkey. This edible Ferula mushroom can grow even up to 8 kilos. After the rain, sunny weather accelerates the growth process. I found it many times in the Akdoğan Mountains. Vartolu3566 (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, if I remember correctly, it was the end of May or before June 10th. The time for mushrooms in the mountains had already passed. But the mushroom I found was white. And not a single insect was on it. It was as strict as a soccer ball. I found it on the edge of the Big Akdoğan lake. Vartolu3566 (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Cephalocereus polylophus and Neobuxbaumia polylopha merge histories
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
