Talk:Toxicoscordion venenosum

Obsolescent name
According to the article on the (former) genus Zigadenus (now, it says, restricted to a single species and this ain't it), the former Zigadenus venenosus is now classified as Toxicoscordion venenosum (which redirects hither). I ran into this problem while doing an Esperanto Wikipedia article on genus Camassia, but I'm not expert enough in the intersection of botany and wp-en to know exactly what should be done to fix this. My personal preference, which flies in the face of most Wikipedian custom, would be for the main article to go by common name rather than (clearly fickle) scientific name, so Deathcamas would be where one would look for the facts. --Haruo (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If we are to take the Zigadenus article as correct, then you would need to get an administrator to move the article to Toxicoscordion venenosum. But it would be preferable to confirm that the cited papers segregating most of the former Zigadenus command general acceptance. (Flora of North America has the species in Zigadenus, but this seems to be too old to be probative. USDA has it in Zigadenus and GRIN and CalFlora in Toxicoscordion. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My botanical knowledge is inadequate to judge. I leave it up to you guys. ;-) --Haruo (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The Kew World CheckList of Selected Plant Families seems to accept the move of all but one species from Zigadenus to Toxicoscordion, citing Brasher, J.W. (2009). A new combination in Toxicoscordion (Melanthiaceae) for the Rocky Mountain region, North America. Novon 19: 295-296. See here. I'm usually inclined to take the WCSP as definitive. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, the article on Zigadenus looks very good. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've moved all but one of the Zigadenus species articles to the Toxicoscordion synonym and fixed them up accordingly. I need to get an admin to move this one. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. I'd been meaning to ask about whether people were up to dismantling Zigadenus s.l. I also resurrected the new genera from redirects to Zigadenus; if someone could cast an eye over to make sure I haven't erred in describing them, I'd appreciate it. (Oh, and Haruo, a number of these plants are called "Deathcamas", so it really wouldn't be wise to put a single species there.) Choess (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll go over the articles today; I've fixed this one for the change of name. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the set of articles is basically ok now, and correctly categorized. The only uncertainty I have is that there is an article at Zigadenus and at Zigadenus glaberrimus, which would not normally be the case for a monotypic genus, which it now is. Should the later be merged in? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a notion: what about moving the current Zigadenus to Deathcamas and tweaking it into a summary of Zigadenus s.l. and Stenanthium s.l. and then moving Zigadenus glaberrimus to Zigadenus? There are a number of incoming links to Zigadenus in the old sense, and it would be useful to have somewhere to point them. Choess (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've converted deathcamas to a dab page. Perhaps there is a case for converting this to an article, but with regards to the incoming links at Zigadenus I'm not convinced that they were all appropriate (for example, shouldn't camass point at Camassia?): I've already redirected two to here. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree that deathcamas is best as a dab page for species which have this term in their "common" names. I agree with Choess that there should be two articles. One should follow the WP:PLANTS convention for monotypic genera, be called "Zigadenus" and deal with Zigadenus s.s. and Z. glaberrimus. The other should deal with the phylogeny issues and the changes of genera. The problem remains what to call this second article. "Zigadenus sensu lato" is possible but unusual. A slightly wider article on "Tribe Melanthieae" is another possibility. I'm really not sure how to proceed. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Flora of North America, which uses the old circumscription for Zigadenus, assigns the common name of "Death camas" to the genus collectively. It also lumps Z. densus and Z. leimanthoides and accepts "pine barrens death camas" as a common name for both. They refer to Z. fontanus, like Z. micranthus, as "small-flower death camas", leaving only Anticlea neglecta and A. sibirica as members of Zigadenus s.l. which do not have an English common name including the phrase "death camas". Indeed neither of those is likely to have an English common name, period, and since other publications (e.g., "Colorado Flora") refer to Anticlea and Toxicoscordion both collectively as "death camas", I don't think it's stretching a point too far to make Deathcamas a page about Zigadenus s.l. Having one page about the genus and another disambiguation page just to separate those 2 species (of 16) seems to me an over-nice distinction, but I'm open to persuasion. Choess (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Deathcamas" (or "Death camas"?) is certainly a possible title for a page about the old circumscription of Zigadenus (the existing dab page could then become e.g. "Deathcamas (disambiguation)". I'm reluctant to accept this option for two reasons. Firstly, I don't myself like any plant articles to be at the so-called "common" name. It's clear that these names mostly aren't genuine vernacular names, but have been invented to parallel the scientific name. I never see the point of this. There are good reasons for the WP:PLANTS policy of preferring the scientific name. Secondly, what's lost in the current broad article is the fact that other genera, particularly Veratrum, are as closely related to Zigadenus s.l. as are the genera into which it has been split. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * An article on Meliantheae seems like a reasonable idea to me. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice there is one in the Spanish Wikipedia (Melanthieae), albeit short, and one in Wikispecies. So I think this may be the best option. I've started an article at User:Peter_coxhead/Sandbox; feel free to contribute. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. "Zigadenus" has now been moved to Melanthieae and expanded a bit to give a brief survey of all the genera. Some cross-links will be added later to other articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Dual Identity
As a slow moving plant curmudgeon (one not eager nor well adapted to nomenclature change), I'd suggest that each article about the individual Toxicoscordion species (such as this one) needs to refer to the name change. My preference is that each article appends the new name with the parenthetical old name, such as does appear in the overview article on all Toxicoscordion. Thus, here the name would read Toxicoscordion venenosum (syn Zigadenus venenosum) OR Toxicoscordion venenosum (formerly Zigadenus venenosum).

I disagree with the suggestion that the common name "Death Camas" is a better article name -- despite the above mentioned mini-crisis surrounding the scientific name change. Camas and Death Camas are not closely related, but the names suggest a close tie. When I discuss these two plants I always use the scientific name especially for Zigadenous (oops, Toxicoscordion) or people get confused, misplace that "death" part of the name, etc. One should almost always lead with the scientific name and redirect common names to these scientific names, except in cases of very common plants and animals (strawberry, lettuce, dog, whale) or in those cases where a scientific body has reached agreement that an animal has only one acceptable common name, (birds). Even if they are inconvenient and harder to learn, scientific names ARE less confusing even when changes (here e.g.) happen. (No ambiguity in this new name, that is for sure.)  GeeBee60 (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Zigadenus venenosus is the first synonym displayed in the taxobox. Generally speaking, including any synonym in the lead opens a door to including many synonyms in the lead. There are cases (and this is probably one of them) where a plant is really well known by exactly one name that is now treated as a synonym. Including that one synonym in the lead could be helpful. But what should be done when a plant has 2-3 fairly well known synonyms? Plantdrew (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If the article had a taxonomy section, as is part of the plant article template, then the name change could be explained and sourced, which would be helpful. Otherwise I agree with Plantdrew that we need to be very cautious about synonyms in the lead, partly because of the slippery slope issue, and partly because it can continue to promote a name no longer in use, given how regularly Wikipedia articles get copied. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Toxicoscordion venenosum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402002248/http://www.cbif.gc.ca/pls/pp/ppack.info?p_psn=80&p_type=all&p_sci=sci to http://www.cbif.gc.ca/pls/pp/ppack.info?p_psn=80&p_type=all&p_sci=sci

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Problem with the picture showing foliage close up
The photograph of the foliage has, only slightly in the background, a plant in bud that to the uninitiated looks umbellate. This is dangerously confusing, since of course this plant is, as clearly shows in the flower pictures, not in the least umbellate. Since that difference is the only obvious one to help the non-botanical recognize this plant from some kind of wild Allium, replacing that picture with a clearer one of the leaves close up,perhaps with the correct flower head, would be a good idea. 2A01:CB1D:2E:3500:787A:6B75:4F38:30DA (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I took this photo out entirely when I extensively rewrote the page. The new main photo shows both the flower and the foliage. 🌿 Mt  B  o  t  a  n  y (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)