Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)/Archive 1

Clarification
I just realized this is worded incorrectly:

'''Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following, as determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion on the WikiProject Plants talk page:

'''1.Agricultural and horticultural cases in which multiple different products stem from the same scientific name (eg. brussel sprouts, cabbage & broccoli). In such a case, a separate page with the botanical description of the entire species is preferred (eg. Brassica oleracea).'''

'''2.Plants which are economically or culturally significant enough to merit their own page, using the common name as a title, describing their use. Example: Coffee. (A) separate page(s) with the botanical description(s) of the taxa involved, using the scientific name, is preffered.


 * There is really only one exception, exception number 2. Number 1 is actually an exception to number 2, not an exception to the rule of using scientific names.


 * Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following, as determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion on the WikiProject Plants talk page:


 * Plants which are economically or culturally significant enough to merit their own page, using the common name as a title, describing their use. Example: Coffee. (A) separate page(s) with the botanical description(s) of the taxa involved, using the scientific name, is preffered.


 * However, in the case of agricultural and horticultural plants in which multiple different products stem from the same organism (eg. brussel sprouts, cabbage & broccoli) a separate page with the botanical description of the entire species is preferred (eg. Brassica oleracea).

Should this last be 'agricultural' alone, as I suspect that in the case of most horticultural plants in which multiple different products stem from the same organism, the common name might be better to head the article, maybe hybrid roses or varieties of corsage orchids? Obviously horticulture is not might area. And maybe in some cases of agricultural products, too, like the wine grape. KP Botany 01:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps "each significant agricultural or horticultural product should have its own article, with the description of the plant taxon proper as a separate article listed under scientific name." The rule then applies equally to both many-to-one and one-to-one cases. There will be less-significant cases, such as obscure tropical fruits, where there isn't enough material for two separate articles, and it will be a little harder to decide what title is best (although in many cases the "common" name is really really obscure, or ambiguous, and so we use sci name anyway). Stan 17:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I got here to ask a question, but might comment on the above first anyway: "organism" is the wrong word in the proposed rewrite, as an organism is a single plant, and I can't harvest broccoli from the plant one week, then harvest a cauliflower from it the next week. I think "species" is the word you want here, or possibly "taxon". Determination of "obscure" tropical plants shows an inherent geographical bias, too. --Scott Davis Talk 00:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I think Stan covered up rather well for my incomprehensible English. There are plenty of tropical plants that aren't obscure.  In this instance, by obscure, all that is meant is little known in the English-speaking world or outside of its original habitat.  Tropical fruits that are not well known, versus those that are.  KP Botany 00:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Single species genera article name
Does this naming convention specify whether the article about the only species of plant in a genus should be named after the genus or the species? --Scott Davis Talk 00:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * They are (or should be) at the genus name - that is the logical place for linking from family pages, for more clearly indicating the genus is monotypic, and for easier searching (most people will search by the genus name alone). - MPF 02:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I waffle on this one myself - if the rule is to go uptree in monotypic cases, would that mean one should prefer "Ginkgophyta" over Ginkgo? There are a bunch of monogeneric families. Going downtree can get you some real tonguetwister titles, like Chiranthodendron pentadactylon. I guess it's a practical compromise to make a special exception for monotypic genera. Stan 17:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think most people are most likely to search for generic pages (Drosophyllum over Drosophyllaceae or Drosophyllum peltatum), so we should probably list monotypic pages downtree to the genus level. Thoughts? --NoahElhardt 20:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's how I think, too. It's the most obvious. - MPF 00:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. I've summarised this into Naming conventions (flora) to save the next person having to read this talk page. As I'm not a botany expert, please correct anything I got wrong. --Scott Davis Talk 22:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Common names
For common names, I would like to see some kind of consensus statement regarding how articles should discuss the use and acceptance of different common names in different countries or regions. I don't believe it's appropriate for a Wikipedia article to try to encourage or discourage the use of any particular name--no two editors will agree on what names to encourage or discourage, and each will have their own POV. Most other botanical editors seem to agree with such a policy. There is no international authority for standardization of common names, and there are enough English-speaking countries, each using their own set of common names for plants (and long histories behind those usages), that in many cases there can be no such thing as an international consensus. When a species has multiple common names, it should be considered most appropriate to neutrally identify where particular names are used, and in any particular areas, which are most prevalent. MrDarwin 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, this is an article content issue not a naming convention issue. It should be obvious that article content discussing common names needs to be sourced, NPOVed, etc, just like any other content. I'm not sure I'd like to get into a dispute about "most prevalent" - how do you source that? I don't think there are many published surveys of nurseries documenting which name they use most often. Stan 18:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed additions to convention
Following from these conversations at WikiProject Plants (here, here, and here), I would like to propose the following additions to this naming convention:


 * Proposals
 * Articles on subgeneric ranks should be named with the abbreviation for the rank in the title.
 * Subgenera should be named in the following format: Genus subg. Subgenus.
 * Examples: Banksia subg. Isostylis and Stylidium subg. Andersonia.
 * Sections should be named in the following format: Genus sect. Section.
 * Examples: Stylidium sect. Debilia and Banksia sect. Oncostylis
 * Series should be named in the following format: Genus ser. Series.
 * Examples: Banksia ser. Spicigerae


 * Articles on interspecific ranks should also be named with the abbreviation for the rank in the title unless the rank meets one of the exceptions (economically or culturally notable enough under a single common name).
 * Subspecies should be named in the following format: Genus species subsp. subspecies.
 * Examples: Acacia coriacea subsp. sericophylla and Lilium pardalinum subsp. pitkinense
 * Varieties should be named in the following format: Genus species var. variety.
 * Examples: Anadenanthera colubrina var. cebil and Ulmus pumila var. arborea
 * Forms should be named in the following format: Genus species f. form.


 * Cultivars should be named in the following format unless they again meet one of the exceptions for using the common name (e.g. Granny Smith and not Malus 'Granny Smith'): Genus 'Cultivar'
 * Examples: Ulmus 'Churchyard', Banksia 'Celia Rosser'


 * Hybrid cultivars should be titled at the cultivar name.
 * Hybrid that do not have cultivar names (mostly natural hybrids) and do not have a common name that meets one of the exceptions should follow the naming conventions set down in the ICBN regarding the naming of hybrids. Example: Nepenthes x pyriformis.

Updated cultivar proposal

 * Cultivars should be named in the following formats unless they meet one of the exceptions for using the common name (e.g. Granny Smith and not Malus 'Granny Smith'):
 * Cultivars that are derived from a single species (non-hybrids) should be named in the following format: Genus species 'Cultivar'
 * Examples: Stylidium graminifolium 'ST111'
 * Cultivars that are derived from two or more species within a genus (resulting from hybridization) should be named in the following format: Genus 'Cultivar'. These hybrid cultivars should be titled at their cultivar name and not the hybrid name, though redirects should exist.
 * Examples: Rosa 'Abraham Darby' and Ulmus 'Morton'
 * Cultivars with unknown parentage (e.g. many apple cultivars) should be named as if they were in-genus hybrids above if they don't meet the common name exceptions.

Discussion
Please discuss these proposals here.

On hybrids, I'm not sure if there was clear consensus on the use of x versus × in the article title. The multiplication sign is technically correct, but it makes it difficult to link to, which is against the main naming convention. Thoughts on this? Thoughts on anything else here? Cheers! --Rkitko (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good but what are your sources for these recommendations? I assume the abbreviations are ICBN or are they?  Please annotate with references.  If there are none, this is fine.  These all follow the same formats I used when presenting researched plant names, so I assume there is a source, but I never had to do anything but follow explicit instructions.  KP Botany 03:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on the ICBN and haven't read through all of it, but reading through articles on subgenera and sections, etc., these are the abbreviations it used when discussing these ranks. I can't find the specific article within the ICBN that suggests these abbreviations, though. --Rkitko (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say stick with the x, since it is indeed easier to type, link to, and above all search for. -- SB_Johnny | PA! 07:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We can also suggest redirects that use ×. --Rkitko (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What do we do with cultivar article titles which include trade designations such as Ulmus UPMTF (Bosque™) mentioned in this discussion. It could either be Ulmus 'UPMTF' (UPMTF being the cultivar name ) or it could be Ulmus 'UPMTF' (Bosque™) or Ulmus 'UPMTF' (Bosque) if the ™ is required to be omitted as per WP naming conventions. I realise that we can do a redirect, but omitting the trade designation Bosque would make the word "Bosque" disappear from the elm cultivar category, perhaps giving the false impression that there is no article on it. As far as I can tell it appears to be standard practice for the cultivar and trade designation to appear together e.g. |retq=ETI%3DUlmus|firstval=31|lino=4 here is how the Arnold Arboretum refers to the elm cultivar Morton (Accolade™) --Melburnian 08:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer going by the cultivar name unless the tradename is much more well known to the point that it becomes a culturally or economically significant common name on its own. Maintaining both in the article makes it more difficult to link to and appears to be disambiguation for the sake of nothing. (Is there more than one Ulmus 'UPMTF'?) In my opinion, ™ should never be used in the article title for the same reason I agree that × shouldn't be used for hybrids: it makes it difficult to link to and search for. It's also against WP:MOSTM to use it in text unless making a distinction between a trademarked product and a nontrademarked product (their example is brand name drug vs. generic). I agree the tradenames should remain in the category, which is why it would be easy enough to create redirects Ulmus Bosque or Bosque elm, which we'd have to create anyway and then place the Category:Elm cultivars on one of the redirect pages that has the word Bosque on it so it still shows up on the category. Thoughts? --Rkitko (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in general agreement with what you have proposed above. I'm not 100% sure on the correct name formatting of the sample trade designation redirect as "Ulmus Bosque" (but can't think of anything better) although I'd tend not to go for "Bosque elm" as this format looks like a common name. In the article text, as opposed to the article title, I think we could use the ™ and fit in with WP:MOSTM because it is important to make a distinction between a trademarked name (e.g. trade designation "Bosque" and a non-trademarked name (e.g. cultivar name 'UPMTF'). My general inclination is to keep the article title simple, but aim for maximum precision in the article text. --Melburnian 14:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. I'd agree it is important to make the contextual distinction, but I would also note that some of those Ulmus articles use the trademark more than once and we'd only need to use it in the introduction. --Rkitko (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On cultivar names, I assume the intent is to allow any syntax allowed by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants? In particular, the species should be included in many cases - one example from the Cultivar page is Cryptomeria japonica 'Elegans'. There are probably a few other cases where it is worth pointing to the relevant code and saying "name them according to this, and here is a summary of how those names work". We aren't trying to come up with Wikipedia-specific naming, just pick from among the available names (for example, whether to use a cultivar names or a trade names). Kingdon 21:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In terms of the cultivar article name, the naming convention as proposed would give us articles such as those listed below on the left and redirects for the extended names like those shown on the right. (I'm assuming both versions are valid - please correct me if I'm wrong)


 * Ulmus 'Churchyard'    (Ulmus parvifolia 'Churchyard')
 * Ulmus 'UPMTF'         (Ulmus parvifolia 'UMPTF')
 * Banksia 'Celia Rosser' (Banksia canei 'Celia Rosser')
 * Cryptomeria 'Elegans' (Cryptomeria japonica 'Elegans')

The question is should the species name be omitted from the title in all cases as proposed or should it be included in some or perhaps all cases. --Melburnian 11:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wondered about that when I was looking through the ICBN and ICNCP, but I'm no expert on cultivar naming so I'm not sure why some cultivars receive the species epithet in their title and some don't. Could you explain the reasoning? I assume that the same cultivar name is not given to more than one species cultivar in a genus, thus requiring disambiguation with the species epithet in the title. In my opinion, the simple genus and cultivar name is the easiest and least complex, though I do desire to stick to established external naming conventions if I understood their reasoning. --Rkitko (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the ICNCP via ACRA

"The International Code for Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants states:

''7.1 The name of a cultivar or Group consists of the name of the genus or lower taxonomic unit to which it is assigned together with a cultivar or Group epithet. The name may be written in a variety of equivalent ways.''

Ex. 1. Fragaria 'Cambridge Favourite', Fragaria ananassa 'Cambridge Favourite' ..." --Melburnian 12:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I slightly prefer "ssp." to "subsp.", just for brevity. On cultivars, it depends on the nature of the cultivar. If it's developed from a known species and it's known that nothing else got mixed in, then then species name is appropriate. In practice in WP, I suspect that most cultivars significant enough to get article treatment are going to be based on crosses or have uncertain parentage, and so genus+cultivar epithet is going to be what we usually see here. Stan 14:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is some reason to use "subsp." over "ssp.," although I don't know what--it may be in the code, or it may be a stylistic preference, but I used to use ssp. for materials, but last time I was writing stuff up I was required to use "subsp." for everythinng, horticultural and botanical works. So, if we opt for one over the other, we should, again, find out reasons for preferences, if any.  But it does seem that "subsp." is used over "ssp." KP Botany 14:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose we could come to consensus that either is acceptable since there is prevalent use of both. I'd be fine with that. The St. Louis ICBN does seem to use subsp. instead of ssp. It's not a big deal to me. What does everyone else think about ssp. vs. subsp.? I also wondered if we should write out conventions for subvar. and subsect. and so on. I wonder if we'll ever get to that level of taxonomic description, though! Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming both versions are considered equally valid, I prefer "subsp." over "ssp." here because it is easier for readers unfamilar with taxonomy to work out what the abbreviation refers to. --Melburnian 01:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My belief has been that the species name is supplied when the parentage is a single species, as opposed to a hybrid or unknown. I didn't realize names with and without a species can be equivalent in the ICNCP (according to the other comments here), but Stan seems to share my understanding. For example, see  where most cultivars have species listed but Aspidistra ‘China Sun’, for example, does not.  Or  (Asimina triloba 'Mango').  Another lists with species is.
 * I agree with you - I was actually surprised to find a while back that it *is* acceptable to drop the species name. Pondering Rkitko's comment above, I've investigated where cultivar epithets may occur multiple times within a genus and come up with a couple of examples:


 * Euphorbia 'Variegata' could be:
 * Euphorbia amygdaloides 'Variegata'
 * Euphorbia characias 'Variegata'
 * Euphorbia milii 'Variegata'
 * Euphorbia submammilaris 'Variegata'


 * Salvia 'Alba' could be:
 * Salvia farinacea 'Alba'
 * Salvia greggii 'Alba'
 * Salvia japonica 'Alba'
 * Salvia jurisicii 'Alba'
 * Salvia microphylla alba
 * Salvia verticillata 'Alba'
 * (there's also Salvia officinalis 'Minor Alba')

I suspect that the repetition of cultivar epithets within a genus, as a legacy of the days when cultivar epithets were latinised, is probably quite prevalent. I think that including the species name for a cultivar, where the cultivar is derived from a single species, is more informative and less prone to ambiguity. Melburnian 01:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, excellent work, Melburnian. I suspected the reason for the exclusion of the species name was for in-genus hybrid cultivars. In light of the need for disambiguation in some genera (I'm sure there are similar cases in Hibiscus and Hosta), I'd agree we need to disambiguate with the species name for single-species parentage. I'll propose the appropriate changes. --Rkitko (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do prefer "subsp." over "ssp." because I do sometimes see "spp." when "ssp." is written or vice versa, and "subsp." eliminates this issue. I would like to clarify and quote what the code says rather than making assumptions though, and just go with it, as there is no reason not to.  I have no comment on the cultivars and whether or not they include specific epithets, but this is discussed, I think, in M*!rmbly whatever it's called. KP Botany 06:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?
Well, do we have consensus to add these as they stand currently? Or does it need more work? Agree with most but have a problem with one or two things? Let's discuss! --Rkitko (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Going back to the multiplication sign × versus the letter x discussion above, and given that both symbols are currently randomly used, I'd like to propose that × be used for hybrid names as I believe that there are no technical restrictions to using it in article titles; for example the Wikipedia article × has existed since June 2006. The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature Recommendation H.3A states:
 * H.3A.1. The multiplication sign in the name of a nothotaxon should be placed against the initial letter of the name or epithet. However, if the mathematical symbol is not available and the letter "x" is used instead, a single letter space may be left between it and the epithet if this helps to avoid ambiguity. The letter "x" should be in lower case.


 * Given that the mathematical symbol *is* availalable to us, I think that we should use it, both for article names and within articles for consistency and to avoid the need for piped links. Redirects using the x version would cover searches. Here's how this proposal would affect current article names:


 * Disocactus ×hybridus (leave as is, create redirect from Disocactus x hybridus)
 * Ulmus × hollandica (move to Ulmus ×hollandica |retq=ETI%3Dulmus|firstval=11|lino=10, redirect from Ulmus x hollandica)
 * Fatshedera (move to ×Fatshedera)
 * Geranium x magnificum (move to Geranium ×magnificum)
 * --Melburnian 09:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've created the redirect for the first; holding fire on the moves, as I'd like to know a bit more about that H.3A.1 rec. - is it still there in the new Vienna Code? (despite their saying the e-version would be available first by May, and then July, it still isn't up, and I don't have a paper copy). It is such a weird and counter-intuitive recommendation that I wouldn't be surprised if it gets changed to the more logical (and traditionally far more widely used) spaced format (i.e., Disocactus × hybridus, × Fatshedera). Also - it's only a recommendation, not a requirement; to me the '×' symbol appears sufficiently similar to an 'x', that a hybrid name with no space (particularly if it begins with a vowel) looks like a normal name beginning with an 'x' (Pinus ×attenuradiata = "Pinus xattenuradiata"). How long till Rosa xanthina gets misinterpreted as Rosa × anthina?? As an aside, does anyone know when and why this recommendation was made in the first place? Whose idea was it, and how was it pushed into the ICBN?? Even though it is in my old paper copy of the Sydney Code, they did not actually follow it; cited hybrid names are spaced as × Fatshedera, Disocactus × hybridus, etc. - MPF 10:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * MPF, I'm not sure if this is the most up-to-date edition or why it was taken down with no explanation, but this is the article H.3 of the Vienna code from archive.org. View the entire archived contents here. Does that help? Looks like Vienna allows for space if it "best serves readability". --Rkitko (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Never thought of archive.org – saves the day! (unless of course they change it from that draft, tho' that seems unlikely if the dead tree edition is already out, they won't want to differ from that). Definitely a change from the St Louis Code. I'd like to suggest that we adopt a single space on each side of the times sign for clarity, as above: Disocactus × hybridus, × Fatshedera. One possible 'extra' in article space (not relevant to page titles) is to use a nbsp between the times sign and the epithet (Disocactus × hybridus, × Fatshedera), to avoid breakage at the end of a line. - MPF 20:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that the the later Vienna Code (good find Rkitko) is more flexible and states that "the exact amount of space, if any, between the multiplication sign and the initial letter of the name or epithet should depend on what best serves readability", and given MPF's examples of how putting in this space does just that I concur with his suggestion.--Melburnian 00:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd agree, for the sake of disambiguation. But is there enough consensus here to introduce these new pieces into the convention? Certainly the uncontested parts (such as naming of var., subsp., sect., subg., etc.) seems to be ok with everyone involved. I've tried to gain more interest in discussion. Do we think it's time to insert these into the convention? (And just for the sake of continuity, it appears as if the archive.org links I posted earlier no longer work, but the Vienna Code is up and running here.) Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's a good idea to introduce the non-contested parts into the convention (they've been open for discussion for nearly two months now), and list the remaining items as "issues for further discussion". Melburnian 13:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Monotypic genera
Folks, I've seen a bit of talk about the naming convention that states monotypic genera should be titled at the genus title, e.g. Oreostylidium, not Oreostylidium subulatum. There appears to have been little discussion on it, though most people abide by it. I was wondering if it might be productive for us to discuss it and affirm, amend, or repeal this provision. Thoughts? Arguments for and against? And what about the bit about monotypic families? --Rkitko (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A search on TOL archives gave a few results. cygnis insignis 23:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that if there is only one article covering multiple ranks, we ought to choose a consistent rank for the title. Genus seems as good as the other options, so I am happy with the status quo on this point. I don't feel particularly strongly about it though.
 * I do, however, feel strongly that we should not be mandating that the various ranks of a monotypic taxon all be treated in the one article. It is often the case that you'll have plenty to say about the species, and then distinct things to say about the monotypic genus (e.g. it may have had previous circumscriptions that were not monotypic; it may have been placed in various families, and in various positions within a family; it may have been promoted or demoted at some point, or synonymised with another genus for a time, or another genus may have been synonymised with it for a time), and then distinct things to say about the monotypic family (e.g. it may have had previous circumscriptions that were not monotypic; it may have been placed in various orders, and in various positions within an order; it may have been promoted or demoted at some point, or synonymised with another family for a time, or another family may have been synonymised with it for a time). In such cases, a "rule" that monotypic taxa should be treated all together really sucks. An example: surely no-one would argue that Wikipedia would be improved by merging the currently monotypic Dryandra ser. Floribundae into Banksia sessilis. Hesperian 01:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, each naming convention comes with the caution that common sense should apply above all else. For example, we decided to move Ginkgo to Ginkgo biloba to make way for an article on the genus that includes extinct taxa and fossil history. I also agree that taxa that are no longer valid can conceivably have very interesting stand-alone articles. So, in order to avoid the problem you describe at the end of your comment, how would you suggest a possible rewording to avoid abuse of the convention, if such a statement is necessary? --Rkitko (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hesperian, nothing in WP:NC (flora) would support such a merger. The policy applies to monospecific genera and monogeneric families, not to all monotypic taxa. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Affirm. Scientific papers use the genus name when discussing monotypic taxa.  That tendency is probably even stronger in horticultural or other contexts. Kingdon (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Affirm, as per Kingdon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Amend. A lecture by E. O. Wilson provided a citation for my objection to the current guideline. He describes a song, by elementary school teacher Karen Bloom, as the essence of his lecture on Systema Naturae. The first part goes:
 * When we study living creatures, we must call them the right name/ so we can group them by their features and how they are all the same./ Of course Aristotle tried to group things based on what he had observed,/ but Linnaeus used a method where he named them with two words, binomial nomenclature ... [emphasis mine]
 * Genus is not as good as the other options because:
 * The basic unit Linnaeus recognized is a species — thanks heavens he hit on that ... (Wilson)
 * The rest of that contribution to this discussion helps to illuminate why the articles should be named for the species. I agree there should be a consistent rank if there is only one article. I also agree that a monospecific genus could be split to its own article for the taxonomic history, the other facts on the plant would therefore be in an article with the name of the species. Consider what would happen if an article was split, everything but the taxonomy would be split to a new article with the full name of the plant.
 * The rationale for choosing genus over species and family was never given, I suspect it emerged from discussions on other guidelines, and none is given in this discussion. That "scientific papers use the genus name" is a true statement, but so is scientific papers use the species name! The latter is more often the case in the searches I tried, eg, although enthusiasts magazines tend to use the former a bit more. The horticultural consideration is irrelevant unless it is moved to a common name, eg. Cephalotus to Cephalotus. If one takes the view that title should be an organisms highest unique rank, then the title of my example would be Cephalotaceae. Nah, we should KISS and heed Wilson's words when he says:
 * Linnaeus’ second major contribution was a binomial nomenclatural system, ...
 * I don't think I've overlooked anything. The accepted name for my example is Cephalotus follicularis, our general guidelines on article titles strongly suggests that we should use that name. cygnis insignis 21:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Affirm, as per Kingdon. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No strong opinion but would like to see a clear statement on the naming guidelines pages. Have recently had some confusion on this on WT:ARTH. Shyamal (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Affirm. It has the advantage of brevity (always desirable, especially when the species epithet is a tongue twister, witness Chiranthodendron pentadactylon for example), and corresponds to less formal usage, which is preferable in an encyclopedia written for a general rather than a scientific audience. At the same time, we should allow splitting in the handful of cases where the coverage is getting lengthy, or has a natural dividing line for some reason (many extinct species, etc). Stan (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although using just the genus seems cleaner, I think Cygnis insignis has a good point. In a sense, placing it at the species name says "this is a notable species, and, oh, by the way, it's the only one in its genus," whereas placing it at the genus name says "this is a notable genus, and, by the way, if you are looking for information about its species, look no further, because there is but one." On philosophical grounds, I support species, but since it's an encyclopedia, I could go with either option as long as it's consistent.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Amend. Per arguments by cygnis insignis w. the addition of the earliest comment by Hesperian on monotypic taxa (genera, families, etc) that have been polytypic earlier. I see no reason for not being exact (i.e. using full binomial) - being a member of a monotypic genus does not change that. • Rabo³  • 11:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Affirm because, typically, Wikipedia genus articles have information on species, while species articles don't have information on the genus, so this convention, although imperfect, fits in best with the established practice here. Two separate articles may be justified if there is not a substantial duplication of content. Melburnian (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No strong opinion, but using binary name and making genus redirect makes it easier to accomodate new spp that are described. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)