Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)/Draft

'''This is a draft of proposed and disputed changes to the guideline. Please see the talk page of the main article for discussion.'''

This naming convention addresses how best to name articles about plants. It should be interpreted in the context of the general naming conventions policy, which recommends using the most common name in English, provided this is unbiased, sufficiently precise, and sufficiently unambiguous. The most common name is determined by seeing what reliable sources in English call the subject.

In applying this broader convention to plants, the main issue that arises is when to use the botanical (i.e. scientific) name versus when to use a vernacular name. Vernacular names, when they exist, vary from place to place. A plant often has many vernacular names, and a vernacular name is often reused many times to refer to different plant taxa or subtly different circumscriptions of a plant taxon. Thus the adoption of a vernacular name is often fraught with issues of imprecision, ambiguity and regional bias. Experience has shown this issue to be a constant source of conflict. Botanical names suffer none of these disadvantages, and are consistently the most commonly used names when this is "determined by seeing what reliable sources in English call the subject."

Therefore, to avoid interminable naming disputes, the following convention has been adopted:

Convention
For articles on plant taxa, use the botanical name as the title unless: OR
 * The article is about both a plant taxon and a plant product, in which case the name of the product is usually more appropriate;
 * You are prepared to make a case showing that a vernacular name is unbiased, unambiguous (or an appropriate primary usage), sufficiently precise, and more commonly used than the botanical name, as determined by what reliable sources call the subject.

Full rationale
The following considerations have shaped this naming convention. It is on these grounds, and in the interests of avoiding a succession of interminable naming disputes, that the botanical name is adopted as prima facie the most appropriate name for an article about a plant taxon.

Scope
The title should imply the scope of the article. For example, the name Apple is used to refer to both the plant species and the fruit, but the name Malus domestica refers only to the species. Therefore, if there is a single article covering both the species and the fruit, the name 'Apple' correctly scopes the article, whereas the name 'Malus domestica' does not; thus Apple is the best title. On the other hand, if there are separate articles on species and fruit, then the species article should be at Malus domestica, because this is the name that correctly scopes the article as about the species alone.

Bias
Widely distributed plants often have vernacular names that vary from region to region. Using a regional vernacular name as the article title reveals or suggests regional bias. Such names therefore should not be used as article titles.

It is exceedingly rare for a botanical name to reveal or suggest bias. A hypothetical example would be a situation where there is no consensus within the botanical community over the systematic position of a taxon. A botanical name that implies the taking of a position in such a dispute should not be used.

Ambiguity
Ambiguity in vernacular names arises because many vernacular names are re-used for different plants from region to region. In such cases there usually will not be a primary usage for the name; and if there is, adoption of it may betray or suggest a regional bias.

Ambiguity in botanical names arises only when a botanical name has been erroneously published more than once, for different plants. In such cases, a single use of the name is accepted as valid, and all other uses of the name are rejected as invalid, so there is a clear and indisputable primary use.

Precision
Vernacular names tend to be insufficiently precise, because their circumscriptions are unclear. For example, when a Nevadan identifies a tree as a 'bristlecone pine', are they identifying it specifically as Pinus longaeva, the species of 'bristlecone pine' that occurs in Nevada; or are they identifying it more generally as Pinus sect. Balfourianae, which comprises all three species of bristlecone pines. If this question cannot be answered with certainty, then the vernacular name 'bristlecone pine' (as used by a Nevadan) is too imprecise to be an acceptable title.

Consider which name is most commonly used
Experience has indicated that—amongst those names that are unbiased, unambiguous (or a primary usage), and sufficiently precise—the botanical name of a taxon is almost always the most commonly used name. This is because:
 * 1) The vast majority of plant taxa are virtually unknown to lay people, and so have no English vernacular name; e.g. virtually every species of green algae; virtually every species of moss; virtually every species that occurs only in non-English-speaking parts of the word; virtually every species that occurs in largely uninhabited areas; etcetera.
 * 2) Of the remainder, many have numerous vernacular names, which vary from region to region, resulting in no broadly accepted vernacular name.
 * 3) Of those plants that have a single, broadly accepted vernacular name, it is common for that name to be ambiguous or insufficiently precise; that is, it refers to many different plants with no clear primary usage, or there is no consistency in precisely which plants the name refers to.
 * 4) The small number of plants that have a vernacular name that is unique and unambiguous and sufficiently precise, tend to be referred to in the relevant literature by the botanical name regardless. Because of the impossibility of directly determining the relative recognisability of names amongst readers, our general naming convention endorses assessing the recognisability of names by seeing what reliable sources call the subject. In the case of plants, it is consistently the case that the sources that one would anticipate using to build a high-quality plant taxon article have a very strong preference for the botanical name.

Specific guidance

 * The use of a botanical name suggests that the taxon is accepted, so obsolete taxa should not be entitled with a botanical name if a suitable vernacular name exists.
 * e.g. the dicotyledons are no longer recognised as a valid taxon, so it is best not to address that group by a botanical name.
 * When treating monotypic taxa, it is often appropriate to treat the various ranks in a single article. If an article treats both a monospecific genus and its species, the article should be named after the genus, with the species name as a redirect. If an article treats both a monogeneric family and its genus, the article should still be at the genus name, as that is more likely to be commonly recognised.