Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive47

Yet another ambiguous plant picture
In the process of going through old CC pictures here on WP, I found this picture File:South American tropic jungle.jpg, and there is absolutely no description. The uploader didn't even edit another page (sometimes they will edit the plant or location right after uploading a picture to add it to the article). Any clues about what type of trees these are? If I could even narrow down a country that'd be a help. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  03:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I see some Jacaranda in the valley. That would make this South America. Hesperian 03:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that the tree in the left foreground is a Meliaceae, and I think it's big-leaf mahogany - Swietenia macrophylla. The tree in the lower centre with dark leaves and a little pale green flushing to the top also looks like mahogany to me. The tree on the right edge of the image is probably mahogany as well. Unfortunately, both mahogany and Jacaranda are commonly used in reforestation and agroforestry.
 * There's a solitary palm to the left of centre that's probably a coconut. Not much use. The palms to the lower right, behind the (?)Jacaranda might be Euterpe. Like the others, this suggests Neotropics. There's some cleared land to the centre right. Adjacent to it are some bananas (again, that could be anywhere in the tropics) and in front of them a stand of palms. They could be coconuts, but there's something about the way the upward-pointing leaves bend that suggest they're something else. Attalea comes to mind, but I really don't know.
 * The red-flowered plant in the right extreme foreground is a Rubiaceae. But we already know "humid tropics". Guettarda (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the tree in the extreme foreground, top left, has trifoliate compound leaves, I'm going to call it Erythrina. Guettarda (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There's got a second image, but it's been deleted: [[File:DSC00204.JPG]]. Mostly bananas and coconut trees in that one. Guettarda (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Better link, if you're an admin Guettarda (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I'm going to copy this conversation to the image description page. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  05:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

help
-- Car Tick  03:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like this Mahonia here, which says it's Mahonia bealei, though our article says bealei is a variety of Mahonia japonica. It's a very good photo of it, if it's that. First Light (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The picture was taken in Maryland. -- Car Tick  04:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This ag extension site gives the name as Mahonia bealei (Leatherleaf Mahonia). Maybe someone here who knows Mahonia could help out with the proper naming. First Light (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for now. -- Car Tick  04:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Eucarya
I've just disambiguated this, but am not certain about the current taxonomic status or placement of the genus Eucarya (formerly of the Santalaceae). Anyone know whether the genus has been synonymized into something else? And what is the current family placement under APG III? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a couple of references that have it as a synonym of Santalum --Melburnian (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Tree ident help
Does anyone know what the species of this tree could be? This to me looks like an acorn (so the tree would have to be part of the oak family?) but I hope it helps. Bidgee (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking it could be Quercus virginiana? Bidgee (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks somewhat like Quercus suber. Might be worth running it past User:MPF at commons. --Melburnian (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Lemon Drop Mangosteen
There turned out to be some problems with the ambiguity of this vernacular name. I've done a minimal cleanup, but if anyone else would care to pad out Lemon Drop Mangosteen and Garcinia intermedia ... (After a quick google I'm pretty sure that G. madruno and G. intermedia are different species, but I don't have a good source for that.) Lavateraguy (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC & now RfM on Arborsculpture
We could sure use a few more eyes and green fingers to consider the facts and help us reach consensus at the article currently being called tree shaping, which started out as arborsculpture and which is the craft of cultivating and training trees, shrubs, and vines to grow into ornamental shapes, useful implements, and structures. It has a project tag for us here, and I got wind of it over at arboriculture back in April. I've since edited a lot, and also finally initiated a request for comment, surrounding an involved & covered artist-editor having maintained a commercially motivated hostile editing environment over a period of years. This yielded a few new editors now, including myself, who reached consensus in a proposal to change the page title to proceed with a requested move to consider the page move back to its original name, which may end up in mediation or not, depending on whether some consensus can be firmly established, and there is some. Meanwhile, the article is moving in new directions and getting much better, though it's a wrestle, and it may be due for a re-appraisal as to quality anyway. Thanks very much, if you can help us out over there. Duff (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

cattail or foxtail?
In the Phleum taxobox is an image of an inflorescence labelled as Phleum pratense. I'm only in the process of learning to identify grasses, but the image looks to me to be of the plant that I am identifying as Alopecurus pratensis. (Originally distinguished from Phleum pratense by being early-flowered, but I've seen what I believe to be Phleum pratense subsequently, and they're not too difficult to distinguish, but perhaps it's different when Phleum pratense matures) (I was looking for information on Phleum phleoides, as I think that I encountered this yesterday.) Lavateraguy (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Phleum image appears to be Alopecurus. I don't have a key at hand, but diagnostic drawings I've found through Google show that Phleum glumes are aristate, and the lemmas evidently don't have awns, whereas Alopecurus has simple acute apices on the glumes, and at least one awned lemma. Although the stigmas and anthers obscure a lot of the detail, the glumes on the image on Phleum lack aristae. Now that I look at it again, it might also be Phalaris.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The bad news is that that image is used on about 20 pages across the various Wikis.
 * Now that you mention Phalaris, that may what the plant I was trying to identify is - I know of Phalaris arundinacea as a canal-side plant, but can't recognise it until the inflorescences are more mature and spreading, while the plant I found was smaller, in a roadside verge, and with an immature inflorescence, and the other British species (apart from being rareish) have less elongated inflorescences. From jizz I'd stick with Alopecurus pratensis, but as I said, I'm only a beginner at grass identification.
 * Next question - is the image at Reed Canary Grass correct? I don't know what it is, but I thought that that species had far more spikelets (or is it just the top of an inflorescence?). Lavateraguy (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

sweet potato
I really think this has to be moved to the species name, and sweet potato turned into a disambiguation page in the same way that yam has. In the US, both Ipomoea batatas and Dioscorea are sold as "sweet potatoes" and as "yams". Often, no distinction is made, and in the worst cases tubers may be labelled with both. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this widespread? Although I've often seem "yam" used ambiguously in the US, I haven't come across the opposite. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen it in Texas and California, as well as on packaging for nationally distributed canned products. I've also recently seen a YouTube video from Boston (on nutrition) where the presenter repeatedly talked about "sweet potatoes" while clearly holding (and cutting open) a yam.  Notice also this sentence in the sweet potato article: "To prevent confusion, the United States Department of Agriculture requires that sweet potatoes labeled as "yams" also be labeled as "sweet potatoes"."  --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Templates for external links
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life. --Snek01 (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Abies sachalinensis vs Sakhalin fir
Hi there! Someone moved the Abies sachalinensis article to Sakhalin fir. I undid the move by copying the content back from one article to the other and thereby screwing up the article history. Can someone please tell me the right way to move the article back? Sorry this question is only marginally on topic. imars (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't "move" the article back; you copied and pasted. To "move" an article select the hidden "move" tool that pops down from the little arrow next to the star and the search window, unless you're using a skin that puts it someplace else.  I've corrected the edit history with a proper move. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding plant species to country categories
Some plant species are very cosmopolitan and end up getting added to many country specific plant categories. It can end up to be an extensive list. Intsia bijuga is an example. It also makes the category system less convenient as a form of plant navigation due to the long category list that needs to be waded through. If a Pteridium aquilinum article existed rather than being a redirect to bracken it would have a huge number of categories. Finally, since plants don't decide to stop at a political border all of the flora categories should be based on geographical borders. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How many times do we have to go through this? Go check your library for books entitled Flora of , Plants of , Wildflowers of , etcetera. The real world categorizes this way. Therefore we categorize this way. Ours is not to reason why. Hesperian 03:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * should be based on geographical borders - should, but aren't. The data isn't available in that form, and has rarely been reported in that format. Guettarda (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm all for classifying regionally. If a plant is found in all, or virtually of Europe, then by all mean, keep it in category:Flora of Europe! I've made similar arguments about regions of the U.S. and Canada. Circéus (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The other trick is to categorize only taxa of the lowest rank. Most cosmopolitan species have several subspecies. Categorise the subspecies articles, then, and leave the species out. Hesperian 03:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)