Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive51

Plant identification
Last year I was in Northwestern Thailand. I have taken pictures of two plants, which I cannot identify.

I guess it is a Conopholis sp. It looks like the American Conopholis alpina (see File:Unknown SE AZ April 29 2006.jpg), but it is growing in a Thai nature reserve (Hup Patad cave).

Can someone identify them properly? Thanks in advance, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Barleria siamensis is a purple flowered species from Thailand, that could be considered but I'm really not sure. Melburnian (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Melburnian, thank you for your reply.
 * I have found pictures of Barleria siamensis on . They look indeed like the plants on my pictures, but, as you do, I cannot assert that this is the same species.
 * About the Conopholis-like plant I have found a picture of it on the site hubpages.com/hub/The-Hidden-Buddhist-Temple-of-Ban-Thong-Lang, on which it is described as Unusual Flora on the Mountain. We saw many of these. Dao said "like mushroom but not mushroom". Not wrong either. Some sort of parasitic plant, but it is not further identified... --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The second pair of photos looks somewhat like a species of Balanophoraceae.Melburnian (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Request to monitor Algae article
Would plant members monitor the Algae article more closely while a blocked user User:Alacante45 continues to vandalize it using IP addresses? He/she is adding what is either a spam link (possibly malware, don't click it!) via different IPs, two so far, while blocked as a user for edit warring to keep the addition in to the article.

I have requested semi-protection. If the article is semi-protected, I will not be able to revert it from my IP address.

Thanks for the help. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection : 1 month. JoJan (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 06:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced plant articles
While editing I thought I removed a tag that listed an article as an unreferenced plant article. Is there a way to get lists of unreferenced articles by category, such as plant articles lacking references? How? Thanks. --KMLP (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember there being a list at onetime, hopefully one of the contributors who is active in assessing plant articles can help.Hardyplants (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I found one for agriculture articles, so that gives me hope, that there might be one for this project too. Hardyplants (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A Catscan intersection between and  (the hidden category used when articles have the unreferenced template) and their subcats surprisingly returns only 55 hits. You could try a Catscan with  or, but you'd have to increase the depth of the search to go pretty deep into the category structure there. Rkitko (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ETA: Ah, I probably only found 55 because talk pages are in the WikiProject category structure, while article pages are in the Articles lacking sources category. I knew there had to be more than 55! Rkitko (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I used it and found some. Thanks. --KMLP (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject plant on talk pages of Green/Red Algae
May I put WikiProject Plant on the talk pages of red and green algae, probably Glaucophytes also? Does it have to go below what is already there, or can I put Plant on top of Algae for Charophyte green algae, and algae on top of plant for others? As a reader the project tags don't always make sense order-wise. Thanks for the input. --KMLP (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, my two cents is that we're probably better off with WikiProject Algae tags and not WikiProject Plant ones (just based on who is likely to be interested in those articles), although especially for green algae I'm not sure that's existing practice. Perhaps other people have other opinions. Kingdon (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The existing practice with algae article is not to edit them. I'm okay with just algae tags only, or maybe also on the charophyte green algae, at the least. However, I think plant editors in the past have attempted to use clades in taxoboxes, and, in that case, they may want to include these few groups in project plants. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed stub sorting of algae articles
I have initiated a discussion about proposed new algae stub categories here. Please post there if you care to comment. --KMLP (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Algae talk page tagging
I have asked a user with a project tagging bot to start tagging wikiproject algae articles. The conversation is here if you would like to comment, make suggestions. Thanks. --KMLP (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed split of Category:Algae stubs and Category:Chromalveolate stubs
Please discuss proposal here. Thanks.

I realize I am spamming the WikiProject Plants talk page, but I would like some additional editorial input on my proposals, and this seems the mostly likely place to get some. Again, tahnks. --KMLP (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Dolicothrix
This appears to be a spelling error (not mentioned in IPNI) for Dolichothrix. I've merged the text into the latter. Would anyone more familiar with procedures care to shepherd the former through AFD. (I don't see a justification for a redirect.) Lavateraguy (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Same for Stilpnogune and Stilpnogyne Lavateraguy (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And Gymnlaena and Gymnolaena Lavateraguy (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not use redirects? These misspellings are probably common, so Wikipedia would be leading the way for sorting them out. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A further point, we're botanists, so we don't encourage confusingly similar names. The zoologists can coin new names with minor spelling changes, but for botany I'd favour redirects. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It turns out that there's a South Afrian thesis that uses the spelling Dolicothrix. Google Scholar find no references to the other two. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed Dolicothrix to a redirect. It is a very easy sort of typo, and the thesis you found is pretty convincing. The other two seem better candidates for deletion, but I'm not familiar with AFD either. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted those. Agree about Dolicotrix a redirect. I recently ran into the case of Eriothrix (Diptera) and Eriotrix (Asteraceae). Took me a while to figure out that one (Eriotrix being the correct spelling). Circéus (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Those cases can be very difficult to figure out, sometimes involving homonymy. How about a "not to be confused with" for each of those Erio...ixes, to celebrate and immortalize the results of your work in deciphering them? Nadiatalent (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For another potentially confusing pair, there is Euphorbia peplis and Euphorbia peplus - the latter is Britain's commonest spurge, and the former is extinct in Britain. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That't truly horrible, and on consecutive pages, too. Linnaeus should be whacked with a wet noodle for that. And IPNI has two authors for Galarhoeus peplus, (L.) Rydb., and (L.) Prokh.. The work required to find out whether the Galarhoeus name should be used instead would be quite major. If you haven't sorted it out already, a "not to be confused with" note sounds like a good idea, to bring it to the attention of any nomenclaturists that happen to check Wikipedia and are looking for a puzzle to pass some time with. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added the "Not to be confused with X" template to the four articles mentioned above. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'v recently been reminded of another rather similar pair, Melochia nodiflora and Melochia nudiflora. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We (or I, if you prefer) forgot to check for incoming links. I've now dealt with them (from Gnaphalieae and Tageteae; I had dealt with the one at Senecioneae earlier). Lavateraguy (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Those examples are looking good now, but the -trix/-thrix situation is fairly large. I pulled out the following list from IPNI and massaged it with grep, etc. Does anyone know good sources for a zoological genus list, fungi list, etc. to compare to this (Paleobiology Database, NomenclatorZoologicus, Index Animalium, Animal Base don't seem to allow wild-card searches)?

Glancing down the IPNI list from the beginning, Chrysitrix and Chrysothrix (both in Cyperaceae) are not in Wikipedia, but Chrysothrix the fungus is. IPNI offers an orthographic variant for the first, Chrysithrix ...

I'd favour adding to Wikipedia lists of confusables all the legitimate names that arise from these lists but aren't yet covered, the replaced synonyms, etc., but it will be a lot of work.

There might be different opinions about which of these names are confusable (Leiothrix/Leymotrix, Manothrix/Monothrix anyone?).

Acrothrix Alcoceratothrix Anisothrix Arachnothrix Asterothrix Brachythrix Calycothrix Calythrix Calytrix Chionothrix Chrysitrix Chrysothrix Cladothrix Dendrothrix Diplothrix Dissothrix Dolichothrix Eriothrix Gymnothrix Gymnotrix Gynatrix Helothrix Heterothrix Holothrix Hydrothrix Hymenothrix Hystrix Lagenithrix Leiothrix Leptothrix Leymotrix Macrohystrix Malacothrix Manothrix Melothrix Microhystrix Monothrix Naiadothrix Oligothrix Omphalotrix Ozotrix Pachythrix Pappothrix Perithrix Phacellothrix Piptothrix Polythrix Pterothrix Ptilothrix Pyrrothrix Sclerothrix Vetrix Nadiatalent (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Fide IPNI, Calythrix DC. is an orthographic variant of Calytrix Labill. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fungi come under the scope of the ICBN. Therefore Chrysothrix (lichen) and Chrysothrix (sedge) can't both be legitimate names. Since the former is in current use, I presume that it is the senior homonym, and Chrysothrix (Cyperaceae) is illegitimate. The Roemer and Schultes work is in Botanicus, and while it isn't an open and shut inference, it looks as if Chrysothrix is another orthographic variant of Chrysitrix. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This list has been dealt with, to the best of my ability. Nadiatalent (talk)
 * Another confusingly similar pair of names - Myrciaria (Myrtaceae) and Myricaria (Tamaricaceae). Or Matisia (Malvaceae) and Mutisia (Asteraceae) Lavateraguy (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've worked on those M... cases. This is a slow process, but eventually could be very worthwhile. Indeed, Chrysothrix the fungus is winning, it is a conserved name, (against Peribotryon and Pulveraria), which means that it beats out all earlier homonyms including the sedge, and that is a bit more ugly because its type species has an illegitimate name, but that's how it goes with nomenclature. I've added some nomenclature notes to the Chrysothrix page. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Viridiplantae vs. Plantae
There is a discussion going on about this at Template talk:Taxobox where replies should be posted. Thank you. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Upper level plant taxa
In the automatic taxobox, we're trying to adopt the standards of all the WikiProjects as we create the base taxon templates for the database. We've observed that WikiSpecies and Wikipedia frequently use common names for taxa such as "Angiosperms", "Eurosids I" and "II", "Magnoliids", etc. in place of the Latin names. Please hasten yourselves over to the discussion at Template talk:Automatic taxobox. Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 04:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference for Grafting
I was checking some references, when I come across this one Titled A History of Grafting at This is a fairly large pdf with lots of good info published by an experts. I thought this site may be of interest to your wikiproject. Blackash  have a chat 13:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)