Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive39

AfD of Pyoli
I've nominated this for deletion here as I can't find any sources about this plant. Smartse (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added two references to the article. But I also changed the category to category : Indian folklore. This is clearly not a botanical article. JoJan (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Need help with new article Pimpinella
Can someone help fill out Pimpinella? Badagnani (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Help requested
Can anyone identify this tree ? I made the photo at San Bartolomeo al Mare, Liguria, Italy in the month of May this year :

JoJan (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Callistemon; probably C. viminalis. Hesperian 14:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. An Australian tree ! That's why I couldn't find it in my book of European trees. JoJan (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Another help request...crediting the proper authority
I'm writing a paper right now on allelopathy in Solidago altissima and am performing research on allelopathy in other plants. I'm no botanist, and have no idea how to tell which authority to attribute here...but I'm assuming I would attribute Nuttall. Unfortunately, I'm thrown off by the fact that everywhere I looked, it says Euthamia graminifolia (L.) Nutt.

Does this mean there are two authorities? Here's all that Nuttall appears to have written on the species:

"EUTHAMIA. (As a section of Solidago, NUTT., Gen. Am., Vol. II., p. 162. DECAND. Prod., Vol. V., p. 341.) Flowers heterogamous; liguli minute, twice as numerous as the discal, subcampanulate florets. Capituli small, oblong or ovate; involucrum imbricate, the scales agglutinated. Receptacle deeply alveolate, fringed. Achenia oblong-ovoid, villous, contracted at the summit; pappus comose, consisting of a small number of scabrous hairs.-Perennial, much-branching herbs. with entire linear leaves; flowers corymbose in sessile clusters, yellow.- Allied to Nidorella and Brachyris, rather than to Solidago.

Euthamia graminifolia; angles of the stem and veins of the leaves minutely hirsute; leaves lanceolate-linear, three to five-nerved; corymb compound; discal florets eight to ten; liguli fifteen to twenty, shorter than the disk. HAB. From Canada to Florida."

Source: Nuttall, T. 1841. Descriptions of new species and genera of plants in the natural order of the composite, collected in a tour across the continent to the Pacific, a residence in Oregon, and a visit to the Sandwich Islands and Upper California, during the years 1834 and 1835. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. 7:283-453.

Anyway...I'm wondering whether to write Euthamia graminifolia (L.) or Euthamia graminifolia (Nutt.). Help, anyone?

Thanks in advance... Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The correct author citation is
 * Euthamia graminifolia (L.) Nutt.
 * so that is what you should write. The other options you've put forward are incorrect. I suspect that you have a fairly good working understanding of animal nomenclature, and are making the mistake of trying to apply it to plants. Animal names are published under the ICZN. Plant names are published under the ICBN. The ICZN and ICBN are profoundly similar—similar enough to cause this kind of confusion on the regular basis—but differ on several important points, including the way in which authors are cited.
 * "Euthamia graminifolia (L.) Nutt." means that Linnaeus published the formal description of the species, but Nuttall found it necessary to transfer it into some other genus. Specifically, Linnaeus published this species in 1753 under the name Chrysocoma graminifolia. In 1796, Richard Salisbury transferred it into Solidago as Solidago graminifolia. Then, in 1840, Nuttall decided to break it out into a separate genus as Euthamia graminifolia. Thus the name is due to Nuttall, but the formal description of the species is due to Linnaeus.
 * Hesperian 03:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Hesperian! Makes sense now!  Can't wait until the zoology class...I'll feel more at home there. :)  Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 04:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Special ID request
A prolific contributor to Commons, Fg2 recently passed away. I've nominated one of his photographs of a Morning glory to be a Featured picture, hopefully to be featured on the Main page in his memory. Everyone at FPC wants a species or genus ID, though. The flower was tentatively IDed as an Ipomoea by a Commons user, but I have no idea if that ID is accurate. Can someone with flower expertise help with the ID? Kaldari (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ipomoea is correct; but its more problematic to be more precise, because cultivated morning glories have a long history of human selection and there are a number of different cultivars and hybrids around. Foliage shape is the most obvious feature to distinguish one group from other. The majority of blue flowering cultivated plants are ether Ipomoea tricolor or Ipomoea nil. Hardyplants (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Lepidoptera food plant lists
I've listed this category for renaming here at CFD. My suggested rename is Category:Lists of Lepidoptera by food plant, which I think makes the contents more clear, but I wonder if there is still a better name. This is more in the province of the Lepidoptera Wikiproject, but any input is appreciated. Cheers, Postdlf (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What are the most influential botany publications in English?
When I first started transcribing botany texts at the English Wikisource, I confined myself to texts on the flora of Australia. Cygnis insignis joined me, mostly working on illustrated material, such as Curtis's Botanical Magazine; and I joined in that too. Later I realised that much of my effort was directed towards texts of little importance. So I moved on to the works of Robert Brown; this was a step in the right direction.

Lately I have got to wondering: what are the most significant English-language botany texts of all? They must be written in English, which eliminates many immensely important works in Latin and other foreign languages, including virtually all pre-Renaissance texts. And they must be in the public domain, so not too recent. I've come up with a list of ten authors, the last two of which are obvious: Robert Brown and Charles Darwin. I'll withhold the rest to avoid steering this discussion. But authors are easier to identify than texts: e.g it is not at all easy to identify any particular work of Darwin's that is of immense botanical importance; and Brown's most significant paper presents Brownian motion, a phenomenon of little botanical significance.

Google doesn't help much here. So what do you guys think? What are the landmark English-language botany texts?

Hesperian 05:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For North America, Gray's Manual of Botany and Flora of North America would be the first ones to come to mind. I know the 1856 printing of the Manual included consderable information on and illustrations of bryophytes as well (by Sullivant), although the names and taxonomy have changed much since then.  D.C. Eaton's Ferns of North America (1877-?) and Sullivant's Manual of North American Mosses (1884) would rate highly on a more specialized list.  Dawson's Gological History of Plants (1888) would be a top paleobotanical text.   Possibly also something by Harshberger, who coined the term "ethnobotany".  There might also be an early edition of B.D. Jackson's A Glossary of Botanic Terms out of copyright.  Likewise, Campbell's The Structure and Development of Mosses and Ferns (1913 ed.) would be incredible, if it's not under copyright.  If you go back much further, Gerard's Great Herball, or General Histoire of Plantes (1st ed. 1597, 2nd ed. 1633) was certainly a milestone in getting basic information into English, although it has little impact today.  Most of the other influential English-language books that come to mind were published after the second World War. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a 1905 edition of B.D. Jackson at Internet Archive. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the importance of Darwin's writings on botany (e.g. on fertilisation and carnivorous plants) they've probably been transcribed by Gutenberg. Contemporary authors who come to mind are Bentham and Hooker. There's Hooker's Flora of India and Handbook of the New Zealand Flora (also Flora Antartica, but I've not found a copy of that), and Bentham's Flora Australiensis, and their joint Genera Plantarum. The last is the most influential English language work on systematics prior to Conquist. I'll second that mention of Asa Gray, and I'll add N.L. Britton. For British authors I'd add Lindley and J.E. Smith. (Checking my files I find a great number of works are in Latin, or French, or German, and I've also been collecting works in Spanish, Portuguese and Italian). Lavateraguy (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lindley is what I was transcribing when I decided I was wasting my time. Hesperian 07:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Genera Plantarum is written in Latin. Hesperian 13:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, wow. I can't believe I didn't think of Britton & Brown's Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States (1st ed. 1896).  Even though the nomenclature and taxonomy are sometimes quite dated, people still use the first or second editions because they (1) cover the eastern United States and Canada, (2) include lists of published synonyms, and (3) have incredible illustrations.  If it's not under copyright, then I'd heartily throw support behind Britton & Brown.  Since the FNA is not yet completed, Britton & Brown is still being used today (albeit in later editions). --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been very interesting so far, and not what I expected. I was thinking along the lines of Hale's Vegetable Staticks; Hooke's Micrographia; Grew's The Anatomy of Plants; maybe Gilbert White's Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne. i.e. anatomy and physiology rather than systematics and floras. I will definitely have to check some of these out. Hesperian 13:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Taking it one step further is Wilhelm and Strink's "Plans of the Chicago Region." While it's a traditional flora and regionally focused, it also contains plant associations by ecosystem that are serving to guide environmental restoration efforts. The book is crucial to understanding the diversity of natural systems in the southern Great Lakes, but the ecosystem approach is one that I hope to see duplicated in future flora. MApandr (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

New York Aster?
Is this picture really New York Aster or this one? -- Car Tick  01:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Number two is not and number one could be, this species has been used a lot in hybridizing garden plants. Hardyplants (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For proper ID, I would need a picture of the bracts of the stems holding the flower heads. Hardyplants (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

khubbayza
Can someone check whether the Arabic word khubbayza refers to Malva neglecta, or to Middle Eastern species of Malva more generally, or ...? --Una Smith (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oxalis regnellii -> O. triangularis ??
See Commons:Talk:Oxalis regnellii for the background info we could dig up. . Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardyplants (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

knotweed
List of domesticated plants lists knotweed as a legume, but knotweed redirects to Polygonum. Is listing knotweed as a legume a mistake, or is there a legume that goes under that name? (BTW, knotweed might be suitable for a disambiguation page, given that it's applied to plants spread over several genera.) Lavateraguy (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it was most likely a mistake. --Melburnian (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Algologists
Can we all agree that Category:Phycologists is the correct name, since (1) it combines two Greek elements, and (2) No one in the field uses the term "algologist"? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As much as I feel for your classicist's instinct, the first argument is utterly moot (or we would have to revise category:television :p). However, I do agree the proper term is phycologist, cf. our article at phycology. You'll have my full support at CfR, but please don't use an etymological fallacy ^_^;; Circeus (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've started a Cfr at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_15. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Monocotyledon
A user has suggested expanding our article based on the content of the Spanish Wikipedia article (which is featured there). The content they have (that we lack) consists largely of a decent looking section on monocot evolution, as well as a list of major groups (with pics and descriptions). I know enough about both monocots and Spanish to translate the additional material. Do members of the PLANTS group think this expansion would be worthwhile? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tangentially, a different user added the same tag to a considerable number of plant articles. But if working from Spanish Wikipedia articles be aware that their lists of species tend to include synonyms. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I like the list of major groups (especially the pictures and short descriptions). If I have doubts it is that there are too many groups listed (from the point of view of someone reading the article from start to finish), and at the same time too few groups listed (from the point of view of someone wanting to see all monocots covered). The evolution section looks fairly good (especially the summary of the fossil record), although I might go into a bit less detail about all the different age estimates and how each one was arrived at (this is always my problem when translating wikipedia articles; halfway through I start rewriting rather than just translating, which makes it that much harder to get done). Kingdon (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Bloedel Reserve
Let me say of front: plants are not my forte. Not even my mezzoforte.

I recently visited the Bloedel Reserve and took quite a few photos, which I am uploading at Commons:Category:Bloedel Reserve. I am guessing that quite a few of these show relatively rare plants, and that the addition of some species names in descriptions and categories would be appropriate. If anyone cares to help out, that would be great. - Jmabel | Talk 22:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Bloedel_Reserve_22.jpg seems like a good adition to Gunnera (although I see that flower morphology differs significantly from species to species in that genus, per ). Kingdon (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When I click the Commons:Category:Bloedel Reserve above, only three picts show up - where did you find the Gunnera image ? Of the nearly 50 species  of Gunnera; G. manicata and G. tinctoria are the most commonly grown - others species that are grown, tend to be the low growing or mat forming plants.  Hardyplants (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Bloedel Reserve 27.jpg looks more like an Agave to me than an Echeveria. --Rkitko (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine why only 3 pictures show up for you; I see 31, of which 30 are mine. Is anyone else having a problem with that page.

The Echeveria was identified for my by a professional horticulturalist who was there at the time. I'd be inclined to guess she knew what she was talking about, but it is of course always possible that she was mistaken. - Jmabel | Talk 01:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I still can not see more than three pictures of trees. I will have to figure out how to clear the cache again in firefox, and hopefully that will solve the problem. I can't recall having this problem on wikipedia before. Hardyplants (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I got in to see them by clicking on the page that shows a "printable version" -- strange.  Anyway, File:Bloedel Reserve 23.jpg does not look right for a Lilium species but looks more like a Fritillaria species. Hardyplants (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest Cardiocrinum; C. giganteum is the one usually grown. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could be, how many flowers on a scape can Cardiocrinum have? Hardyplants (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * About that many - a garden 8 miles away grows it, so I've seen it in flower and in fruit. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, the picture shows about 15 "flowers", which is about right for a mature C. giganteum, and is too few for a upright Fritillaria. Hardyplants (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm only seeing three images as well. I've checked the source served, so it looks if the problem is at the server end rather than tha browser end. I had found the other by looking at user contributions, but "printable version" works as well. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On first sight I also would have said Echeveria, but the general run of Echeveria don't have spiny leaves. Looking on the web, it may be Agave potatorum, or something similar. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you guys are on it. As I said, plants are not even my mezzoforte. - Jmabel | Talk 21:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

See plantpot
Join the fun at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Horticulture_and_Gardening Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

ID requested
I made this photo in Sanremo, italy in May 2009. Can anyone help with identification ?

Thanks. JoJan (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strelitzia, likely Strelitzia reginae. --Rkitko (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That was fast ! Thanks JoJan (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Trophophyte
Anyone more familiar with these kinds of terms care to take a stab at this stubby article? There's a disputed tag and a comment on the talk page regarding the proper use of the term. Any ideas? --Rkitko (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we need an article on such an obscure term?, also note the spelling issue --  Tropophyte   Hardyplants (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would appear from your references (as well as etymology) that trophophyte and tropophyte are different words with different meanings. I'd suggest speedy, since the article title doesn't go with the content.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion? Anyone else concur? Transwiki the correct definitions to Wiktionary? --Rkitko (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No transwiki please. We already got the thing. Circeus (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hyphenated genera
Here's one I haven't seen before: Drake-Brockmania and Pechuel-Loeschea. IPNI uses lowercase after the hyphen, e.g. Drake-brockmania, but a google search turns up both capitalization styles. Anyone know the rule on this or proper usage? --Rkitko (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The ICBN seems not to cover it. Hyphenated genus names are permitted, of course. But the only rule given for capitalisation is "The name of a genus is... written with an initial capital letter". By the letter of the law, DrAkE-bRoCkMaNiA is a legitimate orthography. I see this as an area where we might legitimately adopt a convention, which, I would hope, would be to lowercase all letters except the first. Hesperian 23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the ICBN does not seem to cover it. However if there is no clear determination within reliable sources, I think we should defer to the name as originally published, e.g. Drake-Brockmania (p.197). Melburnian (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an idea. It does appear to refer to a proper name, Drake-Brockman, but species epithets that refer to proper nouns are no longer capitalized. I wonder which usage is more prevalent. Rkitko (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes more sense. Hesperian 01:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (The Drake-Brockmans are a prominent Western Australian family; see Grace Bussell, Edmund Drake-Brockman, Thomas Drake-Brockman. Oddly, we lack an article on perhaps the best known, Henrietta Drake-Brockman.) Hesperian 01:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the Botanic Gardens Conservation International International transfer format for botanic garden plant records which relates specifically to data exchange between botanic gardens  states that "second-word elements (e.g. Roya in Fitz-Roya) should be made lowercase, e.g. as Fitz-roya. Other examples are Saxe-gothaea and Drake-brockmania". That may explain the appearance of the lower-case usage, though the guideline presumably has no authority outside its specific purpose. Melburnian (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth IPNI uses the spellings Mackaya, Mackenziea, Mackinlaya, Mackeea, Macbridea, Macdougalia, Macowania, Macvaughiella, Macfadyena, Maccoya, etc. I don't know off hand what the ICBN says about spellings in Mc, but the only such name IPNI has is Mcvaughia. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ICZN follows the same convention. Offhand, I can find instances such as Clevosaurus mcneali, Heliscomys mcgrewi, Austrosaurus mckillopi, although I'm at a loss for genus examples. However, I'm aware that ICZN conventions say only the first letter of the genus is capitalized, and none of the species epithet is capitalized. I also know that ICZN specifies a genus or species epithet may contain no spaces, but I don't recall whether hyphens are allowed...never seen them used before. Might be about time for ICBN to adopt some new conventions. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The entire ICBN is available online at http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm and even includes a subject index. Hyphenated generic names are permitted and the ICBN specifically addresses them: see Art. 20.3 and Art. 60.9, Note 3. Note that they are treated differently from hyphenated epithets, and can be changed only by conservation. Note also that in all examples given, the first letter of the second word in the generic epithet (i.e., the letter immediately following the hyphen) is lower case.

APG III system
Time to update our articles on classification? I can nab the pdf for anyone if they want it. --Rkitko (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweet! But the above link is broken for me—some kind of cookie error—the DOI link, which should be unbreakable, is http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2009.00996.x . Hesperian 12:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Thanks for providing the right link. :-) Rkitko (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realize - they also published a handful of other papers in the same volume:
 * A phylogenetic classification of the land plants to accompany APG III
 * The Linear Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (LAPG) III: a linear sequence of the families in APG III
 * A subfamilial classification for the expanded asparagalean families Amaryllidaceae, Asparagaceae and Xanthorrhoeaceae

I can get these, too. Send me a Wikipedia e-mail if you need these. Rkitko (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, their phylogenetic classification of the land plants is incompatible with most published classifications of specific groups within the land plants (e.g. liverworts, mosses, and ferns), since they place all embryophytes into a single class Equisetopsida. Unless this system comes to be widely used in the scientific literature and major textbooks, its use as our primary system of classification for plants would be problematic, to say the least.  I would rather they had split up the green algae into multiple divisions rather than compress all the land plants into a single class. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Could be worse—they could have put them all in a single genus (Canna is the first listed in Species Plantarum).--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If they had put everything under Canna, that would have been good news for me - at least on most days I can spell Canna correctly. Hardyplants (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps tellingly, only two authors (Chase and Reveal) signed on to the higher classification (it isn't part of the APG III paper itself). This does further scramble hopes for wide agreement on such matters, but it isn't as if the status quo was a model of clarity and unanimity (should the eudicots be Rosopsida? What to call asterids/rosids? and so on). Kingdon (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added the classification down to ordinal level to the APG III system page, trying to maintain the style of the pages on the earlier versions. It's slightly awkward to show that the Berberidopsidales, Caryophyllales and Santalales aren't included in the rosids or asterids while keeping them between these groups, as per APG III. Currently I've put in “(back to core eudicots)” -- what do others think? However I really think that the set of APG-related pages is a mess. Having separate pages for Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, APG system, APG II system and APG III system seems to me to cause a number of problems, such as: Why not have a single article on ‘the’ APG system? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There would need to be overlap/repetition to make each of the articles reasonably self-contained.
 * It isn't clear where to put some material.
 * The successive improvement to what is intended by the APG to be a single system isn't clear. APG III is intended to render APG II obsolete, as APG II was intended to render the original APG system obsolete. This isn't obvious to the reader from the organization of the present set of pages.
 * Each revision means that the pages on the previous version need editing to explain that it has been superseded. This doesn't get done -- or at least doesn't get done consistently -- resulting in confusion.


 * I agree with this last suggestion.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As for "back to core eudicots", simplest solution would be to move Berberidopsidales, Caryophyllales, and Santalales up next to Saxifragales, so I'm sure there's some problem with that (is the intention to put it in LAPG order?). As for merging the three articles, sounds OK to me (would you just omit the details of the older classifications? that strikes me as the cleanest way to get an article which reads cleanly but I don't know if it would be controversial). I'd probably merge them into Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (which is yet another article which hasn't gotten updated for APG III, probably further reason to think that these want to be one article). Kingdon (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Pecan
I wonder... With all the rich taxonomic information on Carya illinoinensis that's missing from our current article (summarized here, and could be expanded upon when the proposals/disposals site returns), would this be a good place to use our WP:FLORA naming convention and split a botanical article from the horticultural and commercial use? It wouldn't seem to fit at the current article. --Rkitko (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How long of an essay did you have in mind? If it is just the question of whether to call it C. illinoinensis or C. illinoensis, I'd give it a few sentences and leave it at that.  Or did you have in mind subspecies/varieties/forms/cultivars, affinity with other Carya species, apomixis if any, hybrids if any, etc, etc? I'm not firmly against splitting out a botanical article but the question of C. illinoinensis vs. C. illinoensis wouldn't seem to require it (and in fact would probably merit mention on both pages if they were split). (P.S. at least at the moment the disposals site is up and, under proposal 808, gives the following Taxon references: Taxon 35: 174. 1986; Taxon 36: 278. 1987; Taxon 42: 441. 1993; Taxon 37: 448. 1988; (-37:140); Taxon 37: 440. 1988). Kingdon (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)