Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

WikiProject Plants

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

Requested move at Talk:List of grape varieties#Requested move 11 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of grape varieties#Requested move 11 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 21:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move of Taraxacum

Just a heads up to folks here that there's been a requested move of Taraxacum → Dandelion, especially since it involves plant common name questions we frequently deal with in the plant world. There was a similar move request a few years ago. More at Talk:Taraxacum#Requested_move_13_March_2025 KoA (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Ipomoea, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

no sources for "carnation" as a common name for Caryophyllaceae

Both the lead and the taxobox for Caryophyllaceae describe "carnation" as common names for this family, but neither provides a citation. I also see it listed as an alias on Wikidata (Caryophyllaceae (Q25995)), but find no citation there either. It doesn't seem from the project's documentation that citations are required for common names as they are for e.g. synonyms per se, but I wanted to reach out because it feels dicey to me (and I'm not very familiar with the conventions for editing articles on organisms).

The only source mentioned in your docs through which I could find metadata re: common/vernacular names was World Flora Online, which listed only "Pink Family," citing eFloras (which itself cited a book section authored by the eFloras entry's editor). I've only found equivalent mention of Caryophyllaceae as the "carnation family" is Caryophyllaceae at the Encyclopædia Britannica, but I have no idea where that comes from either!

Sources

spida-tarbell 𐡸 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Seems it is easily verifiable as this Google search finds many uses. Citations aren't absolutely required if the information is WP:Verifiable.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Personally I'm not particularly keen on this usage, but it has been and is in widespread use.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=campion+family%2Cchickweed+family%2Cpink+family%2Ccarnation+family&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 Lavateraguy (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Pilotrichaceae and Callicostaceae

While working on Brymela, I noticed that World Flora Online and Bryonames are now placing this genus (alongside Actinodontium, Amblytropis, Callicosta, Callicostella, Callicostellopsis, Cyclodictyon, Diploneuron, Helicoblepharum, Hemiragis, Hookeriopsis, Hypnella, Lepidopilidium, Lepidopilum, Neohypnella, Philophyllum, Pilotrichidium, Stenodesmus, Stenodictyon, Thamniopsis, and Trachyxiphium) in Callicostaceae rather than Pilotrichaceae, with Pilotrichaceae now considered a synonym of Neckeraceae as of the December 2023 snapshot. WFO usually follows Goffinet and Buck's Classification of extant moss genera (last updated March 2020), which leaves most of those genera in Pilotrichaceae, but WFO seems to have split from that classification for reasons I'm not aware of. These are mostly redlinks, so there shouldn't be too much clean-up work (which I'm quite willing to handle if no one else beats me to it), however, I have no idea what should be done with the Pilotrichaceae article - should it simply be redirected to Neckeraceae? I'm hesitant to do so without understanding the rationale behind the current WFO placements, which I haven't been able to figure out. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I find a Expert Networksystem-based-on-plastid-phylogenomic-data.pdf 2024 paper from the Bryophyte Phylogeny Group, which isn't consistent with WFO (but doesn't address generic placements, so doesn't aid in understanding the discrepancy). Following the references therein might shed some light. I would have suspected polyphyly of Pilotrichaceae, but that doesn't fit the BPG paper. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that WFO switched to Bryonames as its TEN (Taxonomic Expert Network) for Bryophytes. I'm trying to remember which taxa, but I did make some changes last year for the changes following Bryonames.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, WFO is following Bryonames. WFO is pretty actively adding new TENs (at some point I think we should discuss moving from POWO to WFO as our default taxonomic source)

I'm not sure what to make of the "Bryophyte Phylogeny Group". I feel like they are kind of usurping the "Phylogeny Group" "brand". The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group and Legume Phylogeny Working Group have co-authors from many countries and institutions. 8 of the 15 of the co-authors of the BPG are affiliated with China National Botanical Garden, Beijing, and only two are affiliated with a non-Chinese institution. They say they are "using the largest plastid data set to date, including 549 taxa that represent almost all known orders and two-thirds of families". Largest plastid data set to date is great, but one-third of families not represented is not something I would expect from a "Phylogeny Group". Plantdrew (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that Neckeraceae is in Hypnales, and Pilotrichaceae is in Hookeriales (though they are sister orders). For Pilotrichaceae to be a synonym of Neckeraceae with most genera transferred to Callicostaceae requires that the older Pilotrichaceae to be polyphyletic with Pilotrichum distant from most of the rest of the family. Apart from that not being reflected in the BPG paper the 2010 thesis The Evolution and Diversification of the Hookeriales (Bryopsida) with emphasis on Distichophyllum (Daltoniaceae) and its allied genera has Pilotrichum (with Neohypnella) (Callicosta not sampled) comfortably nested in Hookeriales, though as sister to the rest of Pilotrichaceae. I could imagine people splitting this family into two, but I don't see how Neckeraceae comes into play. (On further thought, Neckeraceae could be polyphyletic or misplaced in Hypnales instead; but this isn't showing up in the BPG paper either. Another paper has Neckeraceae polyphyletic, but Neckera comfortably within Hypnales.) Lavateraguy (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Last year I made some revisions based on Bryonames involved in the break-up of Dicranales and recognition of new orders in Dicranidae. These changes were based on Bechteler et al (2023). Their phylogenetic results, based on over 200 nuclear genes, offer nothing to support changes involving Pilotrichaceae. The two genera sampled (Cyclodictyon, Lepidopilidium) fall within Hookeriales, while the 14 sampled Neckeraceae genera cluster together in Hypnales (see Fig S4). They don't sample Pilotrichum. I assume there must be another study behind the WFO/Bryonames changes, possibly involving a surprise placement of Pilotrichum.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The record for Pilotrichum in Tropicos has type LT: "Pilotrichum smithii (Dicks. ex Hedw.) P. Beauv.". Bechteler et al (2023) samples Leptodon smithii, which clusters as with the Neckeraceae genera. WFO says Pilotrichum smithii is a synonym of Leptodon smithii. This stuff always confuses me, but if the type species of Pilotrichum belongs Neckeraceae, then does that make Pilotrichaceae a synonym of Neckeraceae?

Then if the type species of Pilotrichum is moved to Leptodon, the remaining Pilotrichum species may have been assigned to Callicosta and the family renamed Callicostaceae.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

With that information I find that Crosby reported that Pilotrichum is an illegitimate name, and a proposal to conserve it was rejected. To be precise Pilotrichum P.Beauv. is illegitimate as the name Leptodon was available and should have been used, and Pilotrichum Brid. (which excludes Leptodon smithii) is a later homonym and also unavailable. You seem to have solved it.

Now I'm left wondering why anyone has been using Pilotrichum and Pilotrichaceae for the last 40 years. Have bryologists disagreed with Crosby's analysis?

@Ethmostigmus: perhaps the solution is to move Pilotrichaceae to Callicostaceae, then replace Pilotrichaceae with a short article summarising Crosby and any other relevant literature you can get your hands on, and also add the same information to Callicostaceae under Nomenclature. Though this is sufficiently deep in the minutiae of the code that I'm nervous of drawing a conclusion. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Now I'm left wondering why anyone has been using Pilotrichum and Pilotrichaceae for the last 40 years. Have bryologists disagreed with Crosby's analysis? Yes, I was thinking the same thing as I was searching through the literature trying to get background on this change - Callicostaceae is hardly a newly proposed group, so I have to wonder what made the folks at WFO decide to make this change now, and that's why I'm so reluctant to implement it here without more context... I have to assume that the WFO bryophyte team knows something we don't, so I'm hoping a future publication will discuss this classification. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that Crosby's analysis depends on Leptodon smithii being the type of Leptodon. Otherwise it would Lasia that was illegitimate. I haven't found the 1803 publication of Leptodon to confirm this, or the conservation proposal, which I expect would have more details. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Crosby cites the conservation proposal (Crosby 1968). The citation for the rejection (Petersen 1976) isn't helpful as it doesn't seem to mention it (possibly refers to Appendix).

The WFO Plant List versions show they made the change in the December 2023 version, but doesn't give any explanation. Compare Hookeriales Jun 2023 v Hookeriales Dec 2023 or Pilotrichum June 2023 v Pilotrichum Dec 2023.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)