User:Plantdrew/Poison ivy

Poison ivy and poison oak are common names variously applied to four North American species in the flowering plant genus Toxicodendron. One other species in the genus Toxicodendron occurs in North America, and is known Poison sumac. The leaves and twigs of all of these plants contain a compound, urushiol, which may cause an allergic reaction, urushiol-induced contact dermatitis.

Species

 * Toxicodendron diversilobum (Pacific poison oak), native to far western North America
 * Toxicodendron pubescens (Atlantic poison oak), native to the southeastern United States from Oklahoma and Texas eastward to Virginia and Florida
 * Toxicodendron radicans (eastern poison ivy), native to North America east of the Rocky Mountains
 * Toxicodendron rydbergii (western poison ivy), native to most of North America except the southeastern United States.

The poison ivies and poison oaks have compound leaves with three leaflets. The Pacific and Atlantic poison oak tend to have leaves similar to the white oak, with rounded lobes. The eastern and western poison ivy tend to have leaves with sharp points. However, leaf form is quite variable within each species.

Atlantic poison oak and western poison ivy usually grow as small shrubs to 1 m (3 ft) tall, and are relatively uncommon species in their native ranges. Pacific poison oak and eastern poison ivy may grow either as small shrubs, or as ivy-like climbing vines, and are the most common Toxicodendron species in western and eastern North America respectively.


 * Toxicodendron vernix (poison sumac), native to eastern North America. This species is quite distinct from the poison ivies and poison oaks, growing as a large shrub or small tree with a distinct trunk, and with compound leaves bearing 7-13 leaflets.

Names vs. taxa
That is debatable. I would say that the categories which have been added to the largest numbers of articles are your classes b, r, y, l and n (in roughly that order). Aside from region (r), categories in these classes apply strictly to names, and only incidentally to taxa. Wikimedia projects aren't especially consistent in whether they are modelling names or taxa. The name/taxon distinction is most important for Wikidata's modelling, less important for Wikispecies, and not very important for Wikipedia.

The name/taxon distinction is rather esoteric, and Wikimedia projects are sloppy in following that distinction. Given a particular circumscription of a taxon (and it's parent), there is only one correct name for that taxon. However names that may be incorrect for one circumscription can be correct for different circumscriptions, and one name can be correct for different circumscriptions

Automatic taxoboxes

 * Melhania milleri not in POWO (Grewia milleri listed in two places
 * Mezoneuron kauaiense spelled with a V in Wikidata
 * Pluchea obovata not linked from Pluchea
 * Ruschia namusmontana not linked from Ruschia (neither is Ruschia leptocalyx)
 * Zenia (plant) is monotypic
 * Stipa tulcanensis unplaced in POWO, but linked from Stipa

Non-Candidatus bacteria higher taxa not validly published with valid children
Phyla
 * Abditibacteriota
 * Euryarchaeota
 * Nanoarchaeota

Classes
 * Methanomicrobia
 * Tissierellia

Orders
 * Parvularculales (with Parvularculaceae)
 * Synechococcales
 * Vibrionales



There is an open deletion discussion for five bacteria "not validly published" at Articles for deletion/Gabonia, and there was another one a couple weeks ago at Articles for deletion/Saccharopolyspora salina. Wikipedia has hundreds, if not more than a thousand articles on not validly published prokaryotes.

Validly published describes the concept under the botanical code, but it is similar for prokaryotes (and is quite different from the zoology term "valid"). Aspects unique to prokaryote nomenclature are that valid publication is done in a single journal (IJSEM), and requires designating a cultured type strain deposited in institutions in at least two different countries. The LPSN database is apparently the source for Wikipedia's bacteria classifcation (albeit sometimes indirectly, e.g. citing NCBI records based on LPSN). LPSN has entries for many names?/taxa? that aren't validly published. These are enclosed in quotes on LPSN. In cases where the entity hasn't been cultured, the name is preceded by Candidatus. For non-candidatus invalid names, the most obvious and common reason why the name is invalid is that it has been published somewhere other than IJSEM (although there may be other less-obvious problems with the publication). IJSEM regularly validates names that have been published elsewhere, and has recently been publishing lists of candidatus taxa (without validating them).

I would certainly not encourage anybody to create articles for invalid bacteria, but they can't be entirely avoided. There are invalid higher taxa that have valid children. I went though phyla, classes and orders in LPSN, and found the following non-candidatus invalid names with valid children. Phyla: Abditibacteriota, Euryarchaeota, Nanoarchaeota. Classes: Methanomicrobia, Tissierellia. Orders: Parvularculales, Synechococcales, Vibrionales. I didn't look into invalid families. Some invalid names may represent bacteria of significant interest: Mycobacterium orygis is a human and veterinary pathogen. Achromobacter obae has a unique enzyme that has been the subject of many research papers (Wikipedia claims the entire genome of this species has been sequenced, but I think there may only be a complete sequence for the enzyme).

What should be done about articles for invalid bacteria, if anything?