User talk:Brya/Archive1

Dicot taxoboxes

Saw your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/fr. You might want to chip in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Dicot flowering plant taxoboxes - MPF 11:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I gave it a try. Brya 14:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Tomato

Kindly explain yourself - why "extreme POV", and what urban legend? And why do you have to be so confoundedly rude to other editors in your edit summaries? - MPF 22:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, as for extreme, my dictionary explains it quite clearly. As to being rude, I am just mirroring your comments in your ruthless reversals but then being quite a bit more exact and polite. If a more exact and polite version of your comments is "confoundedly rude" what does that say about your comments? Brya 13:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I do know what extreme means, and I don't see why it applies in this case. And I know what an urban legend is too, and don't see why that applies to what I wrote - MPF 14:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is the problem, you don't see what you are doing, but insist on doing it anyway. Brya 11:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Headings

Hello, I suggest using the standard headings for the "See also" and "External links" sections, as explained in Wikipedia:Section, that is:

== Section ==

=== Subsection ===

==== Sub-subsection ====

. Also explained in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Markup. Cheers. --Edcolins 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically I am fine with standard headings, and they are very helpful in the layout of large articles. However I am a great believer in doing things in proportion. There is a point where a entry is so short that it would become mostly headings and lines: this looks quite unattractive to me, and (not unimportant) almost unreadable.

Until the point is reached where wikipedia prescribes a standard length for articles (it may happen, petty bureaucratic minds are everywhere) I'd prefer to use good judgement, from case to case. So far I am not sure about layout, and I am going by the assumption that if an entry looks like hell to me, it will look like that to at least some others too. I do realize that people are using a range of monitor sizes (at various settings) and that, thus, 100% agreement won't ever be reached. Brya 17:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Italicised × and + signs do exist!

Hi Brya. As you have noticed, I have been fixing a few pages where I've noticed that hybrid or graft-chimaera names have italic × and + signs. This happens when the whole name has been enclosed in pairs of apostrophes, instead of each element being treated individually. I see from your Edit summaries that you find it hard to believe this happens. Please look closely at this screenshot and you will see that the problem does exist. Admittedly it's a minor annoyance, but it's worth bearing in mind.

Please could you also tell me what your usage of "théir" in the example illustrated indicates? I corrected it; you reverted it. I have not encountered it before (and it occurs nowhere else in Wikipedia). If it's so important (and as it is so uncommon), this arcane usage ought to be explained in the article.

I admire your academic rigour, but Wikipedia should be accessible to the general reader. Hence the extra wikilinks I introduced into the Hybrid name article, and the +Laburnocytisus adamii info which I put into Graft-chimaera: it's a far better-known example than +Crataegomespilus, and one in which the results of the process at work are obvious to the untrained eye, whereas the Crataegomespilus only looks unusual if and when the occasional branch reverts to either "parent". (That reminds me, what is the significance of using single quotation marks for 'parents' and double ones for "graft-hybrid"?)

Please also note that the intergeneric cross you quote is actually Heucherella ×tiarelloides (not "tirelloides"). Again, I corrected this and you reverted it (I see you have copied the mistake made on the "Language of Horticulture" page which you had linked to). BTW, I apologise for my own careless slip when I inadvertently called the species name the epithet.

Finally, while I agree with your comment (above) that the accepted hierarchy of headings within Wikipedia can look unnecessarily heavy-handed, I believe this is another thing that will vary from browser to browser. If you really hate the way they look on yours, I think you can fine-tune their appearance via the my preferences window. SiGarb 00:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I found it hard to believe that there are browsers that would italicize "+" and "×" but I suppose there are no real absolutes when it comes to software. Admittedly it does not hurt to take such browsers into account.

It looks to me that "théir" is common usage. How else to add the required emphasis?

The Laburnocytisus example is indeed the better known example but it already occurs elsewhere and I included a link to that location. Examples should be examples and not the single case that is pushed at all costs. Also the insertion was very poorly placed, breaking up the text and affecting readability, examples should be kept in their place. There is such a thing as overwikifying.

I am afraid I did not take any conscious acton regarding Heucherella ×tiarelloides, I just went with what was there and I did not notice the missing "a". My mistake. Yes, calling a specific epithet a name or a generic name an epithet are ugly.

As to single and double quotes, I use double quotes (") when I am citing (a quotation), and single quotes (') when I am setting a word apart as not to be taken literally. This may not be a universally accepted convention, but it is not idiosyncratic and it works well. In this case, graft-hybrid might have either, as it is not too be taken literally, but I guess I went with double quotes here as the phrase is so common and only has this single meaning.

Yes, the outlook of the layout will differ from browser to browser, from monitor to monitor (depending on size and setting). However, this will have its bounds. An entry that needs to set off solely a "external link" is something else entirely from a lengthy text with many subportions. There is such a thing as common sense, and the moment that format becomes more important than content (and is enforced regardless) then wikipedia will stop being a worthwhile source of content. Everything in good measure, and in proportion. Brya 12:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, Brya. Thanks for your reply. I'm intrigued. Could you possibly give me some published examples of the everyday use of an acute accent to indicate stress? I think it would be considered bizarre in publishing in Britain, especially nowadays. The only examples I can think of are in the poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844–1889), who was, of course, rather unusal in many other respects as well! Here it would be more normal to italicise or underline the word (although of course botany has used both of these conventions to indicate a "Latin" name) or to embolden it.

(Even when scanning poetry into iambic pentameters etc I think it's normal to use a macron rather than an acute symbol to indicate the stressed syllable, thus: ˘ ¯ | ˘ ¯ | ˘ ¯ | ˘ ¯ | ˘ ¯ — though, if you were writing quickly, one could morph into the other quite easily.)

As you suspect, your use of single and double quotes is somewhat idiosyncratic, but each to his own! I think in an article which includes Latin names I would reserve single quotes for cultivar names and use double ones for citation and "setting apart"; the other use would be for a quotation within a quotation. I think the distinction is so subtle as to elude most readers, and would be more likely to confuse than enlighten. Of course, various editors and publishers have their own preferences about these matters, but I think your apparent "mistakes" are likely to be "corrected" many times in the future. (Though probably not by me — I'm not looking for a fight!)

And, whoops! That should, of course, have been ×Heucherella tiarelloides (sorry, it was long after midnight and it had been a long day. But, hey! that's the beauty of wikipedia: no mistakes need be permanent!). SiGarb 21:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The state of my memory is such that I could not easily give examples of anything, although for a great many things I would know where to find examples. Not so for the use of an accent to give stress. I regard this as so normal as not to register at all, so I would not remember any case. I will keep a look out, but within the English language there are many different areas of usage, so an inventory of where this occurs may take time.

I don't doubt that your choice of use of quotes would be more popular than mine, but still I feel that mine is not particularly idiosynchratic. We will see what happens. Graft-chimaeras is not likely to be a much visited area.

Again, I did not notice the error against "×Heucherella tiarelloides". I guess I too am rushing too much to be as accurate as I should be. Besides, this is a Talk page, not a wikipedia entry, so standards are different. Brya 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Typification above the family level

Please read the Tokyo Code section 16.1 which outlines the typification of taxa above the rank of family. Your edits to Marchantiophyta were contrary to the Tokyo Code (1994), and your snobbery on other pages is unbecoming. It is laughable for someone prone to basic mistakes to criticize the mistakes of others. --Unapologetically, EncycloPetey 10:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, let me point out that

1. the 1994 Tokyo Code does not apply here, as it has been superseded by the 2000 St Louis Code
2. Your statement is counter to the Tokyo Code as well.

Brya 11:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific. The Tokyo Code says: "Names of taxa above the rank of family are automatically typified if they are based on generic names." The text you altered pointed out that Marchantiophyta was based on the genus Marchantia. What part of this is changed by the St. Louis Code or is contrary to the Tokyo Code. I am frustrated by your superciliousness in areas where you do not seem to know what you are talking about. --EncycloPetey 12:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I am being quite specific. Both the Tokyo Code and St Louis Code are online. It would take you all of two minutes to look it up yourself?

Art 16 of the latter says "Such names may be either (a) automatically typified names, formed by replacing the termination -aceae in a legitimate name of an included family ..." etc.

The text I replaced claimed the name was based on the name of the type species Marchantia polymorpha. Look it up. This would be true under none of the Codes that ever existed.

Typification is a different topic, and has no bearing here. The type of the division is not fixed. The name of the division could be based on any of the families included in the division, and typification would follow this choice. For typification see Art 10 (note Art 10.7). Also a type is "either a single specimen ... or an illustration" (Art 8.1.). Brya 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, your statement was very, very vague. The printed copy of the St. Louis Code (excluding Appendices) runs to 104 pages; the Tokyo Code is of comparable length. All you had said was Your statement is counter to the Tokyo Code as well, which says nothing about what is counter to the Code, why you think it is counter to the Code, or where in 100-plus pages of the Code you think the information is located. It is expected of every writer making a claim that cited information should be clearly expressed and the specifics of the source identified so that someone can verify that information. You chose instead to hide behind vague hand-waving and a statement to the effect that "It's in there somewhere," which can hardly be called a verifiable claim. Telling someone to look it up is a pointless exercise when you don't bother to tell them what to look up.

Typification does have bearing here, since "the application of names of taxa of the rank of family or below is determined by means of nomenclatural types." Whether you are talking about the name of the species, the genus, or the family giving rise to the divisional name, there is a type the determines that usage. Since Marchantiophyta was an automatically typified name, just as the examples given below Article 16 of the St. Louis Code (Magnoliophyta, e.g.). Article 10.7 clearly states that: The principle of typification does not apply to names of taxa above the rank of family, except for names that are automatically typified by being based on generic names (see Art. 16). The type of such a name is the same as that of the generic name on which it is based. Since Marchantiophyta is an automatically typified taxon above the rank of family, its type is the same as that of the generic name on which it is based. The type of Marchantiophyta is thus material of Marchantia polymorpha L., and the name of the division is based on the generic name Marchantia. This is contrary to your edits to the page, which removed mention of the genus Marchantia altogether.

To discuss the details further, I will have to pick up my copy of the book in which the divisional name Marchantiophyta was published by B. Crandall-Stotler and R. E. Stotler; my copy of the book is currently at home. It may now have a published type. --EncycloPetey 03:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You are beginning to repeat yourself. If I was wrong to assume you can look up a specific item, of a basic nature, in a highly organised book that is available on-line, explained within wikipedia and is linked to from wikipedia, then I apologize. I had not realized that you were making definitive statements without even basic familiarity with the topic. Personally I am only entering items in wikipedia I am quite sure of and if anybody made an addition to something I contributed that looked strange to me I would verify this before entering into an edit war.

Obviously, Marchantiophyta are typified, and this means that this name may not be used for a group excluding this type: it could not be substituted for Magnoliophyta unless the latter did include Marchantia (not very likely to happen). However, a taxonomist selecting a name for these Hepaticae has as many choices as there are families within this group. Typification would follow from this choice. For the topic discussed, typification is irrelevant. Indeed I will agree that typification is a topic that requires understanding and is not for everybody. However I did not bring it up, you did. Brya 08:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As anyone reading this discussion can tell, further discussion is pointless. You contnue to deny that you are even capable of making the smallest mistakes, and resort to insults and attacks to cover your shortcomings. It isn't worth my time to talk to someone who doesn't care to hear what others have to say. --EncycloPetey 08:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Engler

Thank you very much for your nice edition of the article Adolf Engler. Berton 13:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Glad to hear you appreciate it! Brya 19:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that it is a very fine article. Despite our nomenclatural disagreement, I commend you for your work on this important biography. --EncycloPetey 06:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very gracious of you. Adolf Engler is a very important figure, and much has been published on him. In fact all I did was try and make the biography read more smoothly. I hope you succeed in reading up on nomenclature. I am afraid I could not understand why you were so upset on what was a quite dry and factual change. Brya 07:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Because apparently we are reading the same text differently. I can't understand why you hold your position either, and am not sure how to get you to articulate your position to me so that I can understand why the difference of opinion exists. Please don't continue to insult my education. Perhaps the air of superiority in your writing is unintentional (I had a colleague once whose correspondence style was insufferably smug, but who was the most congenial personality face to face).

In any case, I don't need to "read up on nomenclature". John Strother taught a very fine graduate-level class here at Berkeley that I attended and contributed to -- There was a major mis-application of the law of residues by R. M. Schuster that has led to the mis-application of the generic names Anthoceros and Aspiromitus in much of the bryological literature. My hope is that when the bryophyte volume of the FNA comes out, it will provide a standard to help correct the damage.

I did pull out the Stotlers' publication of the name Marchantiophyta and found that Ray Stotler says the name is "based on the genus Marchantia" or words to that effect. I haven't brought the book in yet to quote from directly, but given what he says, I think we were both wrong about the name's basis in this case. --EncycloPetey 08:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The statement " the name is "based on the genus Marchantia" or words to that effect." was correct under the Tokyo Code, and might be argued to still be correct under the St Louis Code. I assume the book by Stotler was pre-2000. The St Louis Code literally says (as I quoted above)

Art 16 "Such names may be either (a) automatically typified names, formed by replacing the termination -aceae in a legitimate name of an included family ..." etc.

which is pretty much exactly what I entered into the entry on Marchantiophyta.

As to my tone, well, I have long since accepted that no matter what tone I use there is likely to be somebody, somewhere who will take exception. As everything on the internet will forever be on the public record I try to stay as close to the facts as possible. Brya 12:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Italicization of suprageneric botanical names

Italicization of names of ranks above the level of genus is not in any articles or recommendations of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature; it's in the preface to the Code. According to the preface of the Tokyo Code:

The method by which some or all scientific names are set off in printed text varies substantially between different countries and language traditions. Perhaps as a result, there has been an unevenness in this regard in different editions of the Code. In an attempt to achieve uniformity, the Sydney Code and the Berlin Code italicized all scientific names at the rank of family and below, i.e. those for which priority is mandatory. The present Editorial Committee recognized that this policy was rather illogical, and, in the Tokyo Code, all scientific names falling under the provisions of the Code are italicized, whereas informal designations appear in Roman type. For example, in Art. 13.1 (d) the ordinal names Uredinales, Ustilaginales, etc. are italicized, whereas the informal group name "fungi" is not. The Editorial Committee considers this to be the most appropriate form of presentation in a code of nomenclature but does not aim to impose this as a standard to be followed in other publications, which may have different editorial traditions, often of long standing.

and the current St. Louis Code:

As in the previous edition, scientific names under the jurisdiction of the Code, irrespective of rank, are consistently printed in italic type. The Code sets no binding standard in this respect, as typography is a matter of editorial style and tradition not of nomenclature. Nevertheless, editors and authors, in the interest of international uniformity, may wish to consider adhering to the practice exemplified by the Code, which has been well received in general and is being followed in an increasing number of botanical and mycological journals.

In other words, it's not even at the level of "recommendation" in the current Code. Because Wikipedia deals with both zoological and botanical names, and because italicization of botanical names is clearly optional, in the name of consistency (insofar as it's possible for the zoological and botanical codes to be consistent with respect to each other!) I would recommend that if zoological names are not italicized, then botanical names not be italized either. MrDarwin 15:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

These both quotes set out the case clearly. Italicization is not explicitly part of the ICBN (not at any rank), and all that the ICBN does is to lead by example. The ICBN italicizes scientific names, botanical and zoological, at all ranks. There is a strong current in Wikipedia to treat botanical names as if they are names of animals, i.e. applying the ICZN to plants, as most Users are not aware of plants. I have been trying to raise awareness among Users that there is such a thing as plant and plant nomenclature. I will see how far I get. Two final points:

• wikipedia does italicize zoological and botanical names
• wikipedia definitely prescribes allowing Users a degree of freedom in the layout and adopted spelling of their contributions. Brya 16:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles consisting solely of a link to Wiktionary

Hi. It seems that you've been creating a number of articles whose only content is a link to the word at Wiktionary. It is easy for me to understand why you would think it is a useful thing to be doing, these articles are actually speedy deletion candidates. To accomplish the goal I believe you are aiming for, it may be worth bringing up the idea of adding a link to Wiktionary when Wikipedia's search function returns nothing. This could be discussed at the Village Pump perhaps. In any case, please for the moment stop creating articles that only consist of a link to a different project. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 00:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you weren't creating these articles. Sorry about that. One can take articles that are simply dictionary definitions to WP:AFD. Jkelly 02:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did make a few such, and modified a few others to become such. As suggested, I put in a notice at the Village Pump. Brya 07:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• The point is that there's a difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so linking to Wiktionary is not appropriate. Besides, an empty page is better as it links to a lot more places than just wiktionary. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the police. A link is appropriate when it is appropriate. If it is not possible to link to Wiktionary, then the relevant content will have to be copied in Wikipedia, just so as to be able to have a link. This will mean duplication and does not sound like such a good idea to me? Brya 11:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• By the way, if you move content to Wiktionary, please follow the transwiki process and include the history page of the article on the wiktionary talk page to retain the attribution to the original editors and comply with the GFDL. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Malvaceae, etc

Dear Brya,

My goal in Wikipedia is not to get making war of editions! I think Wikipedia an important vehicle for people of poor countries have access to quality and free information, especially on the flora, in one moment in that is enormous environmental devastation, conjugating efforts, to that they are made floristic inventories of some areas.

In this context, I find not relevant any kind of academicism.

Index Kewensis lists each species of each genus and the genus in itself, determining the family the one that belongs, this demonstrates that the taxon (as the families Tiliaceae, Bombacaceae, Sterculiaceae) is valid, according to "your" point of view (of Kew), that is notorious and of great taxonomic value.

Wikipedia is, by definition, an open encyclopedia, open to all editors, the ones that are of WikiProject Tree of Life and the ones that are not. It is important to clear that APG, APG-II, APG-n are not adopted officially by Wikipedia, but for WikiProject Tree of Life.

I find important and a subject even of deference with the "classic" taxonomists to refer your position and to place them in evidence being opposed to the "anonyms" that hide behind the acronym APG.

The taxon Family is (unhappily) of a lot of importance, because it is to contain the several genera with your species.

Regards,

Berton 13:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Berton,

I am glad we are in agreement 1) that edit wars are undesirable and 2) that Wikipedia has great potential for spreading information (including to people who would otherwise not have access to this information).

I think any taxonomic point of view resulting in any taxon circumscription can be the basis for an article, provided this article contains factual information and it is made clear from what perspective it is written.

However, as I said I do think it is more important to enter information on real plants (species, genera) than go into taxonomic theories concepts, disagreements, etc.

Also I have no problem with Wikipedia adopting APG as the standard frame of reference, either for the Tree of Life or in general. It is nice to have a recognised standard, even if only to state why one disagrees with it. Clearly APG is the most widely accepted system at this moment: as you know there is even a well-illustrated APG-book for Brazil. However, this does not mean I feel APG is necessarily always right. Submerging Aceraceae and Hippocastanaceae into Sapindaceae is not really necessary. Putting Casearia into Salicaceae was unwise even from the beginning and is now almost certainly wrong.

The Kew database (IPNI) is a list of names as published, with the family assignation as of the time of publication. This may be quite different from the family at this time (now). Any name listed (of a species, genus, etc) may well be a synonym now. The TROPICOS database does give current taxonomic status (keeping up such a database is hard work!).

I have no strong preference for either splitting or joining Bombacaceae, Malvaceae, Sterculiaceae, Tiliaceae. Together they are a clear unit, which used to be Malvales. Changing the rank to that of family is a small change only. I must admit that my personal database does treat them as four separate families.

The family names are indeed important (next to species and genus), but the most important to me is to be clear and to give accurate information.

Regards, Brya 17:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that even the taxonomic stuff still has to reflect NPOV - the idea of presenting all significant points of view on an issue. While a single standard is useful, we need to at the very least point to the major differences in taxonomic placement - so that if someone is looking for the Sterculiaceae they can find it, and if someone is looking for Casaeria in the Flacourtiaceae they can find it easily (and they should be able to find out why it isn't where the expect it to be). Guettarda 18:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I bore that very clearly in mind, and I feel I did express this quite carefully. However in the case where a genus has had multiple placements this may become quite involved, at least until there is a separate entry for that genus, treating its taxonomic history. Brya 19:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a problem that cannot be solved with the regular system of redirects and disambiguation pages that Wikipedia uses. Guettarda 22:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Beyond the mentioned changes (Aceraceae and Hippocastanaceae into Sapindaceae; Casearia and other genera into Salicaceae, extinguishing Flacourtiaceae), against Kubitzki, K. (1993): The Families and Genera Vascular of Plants, Vol.2: it merged Chenopodiaceae into Amaranthaceae, Cecropia in Urticaceae (instead of your own family); it split Scrophulariaceae, merged Asclepiadaceae into Apocynaceae, etc and...await for next revisions! Index Kewensis doesn't determine the families according to the time of original publication, because if it went so it would not be homogeneous.Tropicos is linked to APG, it is not neutral, but you do a search for Abroma for example, you will get like answer: Sterculiaceae. Kew has authority in plant taxonomy, on the beginner APG.However a solid consensus (based on a solid field as the morphologic) of the renowned "classic" taxonomists has still more authority than Kew.Berton 07:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Berton,

Yes, Kew is a leader in Plant Sciences. However, there is more than one such field. In the field of plant systematics, Kew scientists are part of APG and thus Kew leads in promoting and inproving APG.

The IK and IPNI are not taxonomic databases but nomenclatural databases, something else entirely. They just enumerate what names were published and where and when. There is no guarantee that such a name is even validly published (meets the basic requirements for existence). There is no reason why any name needs to be a current name (for a recognised taxon). Very many listed names are synonyms. IPNI assigns names to a higher group as a matter of convenience, not as a result of taxonomic viewpoint. If you look at Polypodium then you will see that published names have been assigned to six different families (similarly, Aspidium to four families). The IK entries assign all such names them to Pteridophyta, not to a family at all. The IK assigns Cedrelopsis to Ptaeroxylaceae, but assigns Ptaeroxylon to Sapindaceae. So these entries are not internally consistent. Nomenclatural indices don't involve themselves in taxonomy, and in fact they cannot do so, otherwise they would no longer be taken seriously.

Similarly, it has its dangers to state that a person has a certain taxonomic point of view. One author may publish a book, placing a genus in a certain family, but twenty years later he may publish a new book, placing this same genus in a different family. When documenting a taxonomic point of view it is much safer to cite titles of books (with years of publication) that to cite persons.

I will agree that it is a useful distinction to separate the Wikipedia Tree of Life Project form Wikipedia proper. Brya 12:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Wikispecies? It's a sister project, part of the same Wikimedia family. Guettarda 15:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Berton that family-level classification is important but otherwise I have to agree with pretty much everything Brya has said. Plant systematics is a very dynamic field, especially in the last couple of decades, and it's my personal rule of thumb that if it's published, it's already out of date. Most family-level classifications are in a state of rapid flux and this is a particularly bad time to try to achieve any kind of stability or consensus. This is going to be an ongoing problem for botanical articles in Wikipedia and there is no simple solution.

There is no one universally accepted authority on plant classification (the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature is a set of rules for naming plants, but it is silent on the circumscriptions of taxa). Index Kewensis most certainly cannot be taken as the authority on plant classification; it is merely reporting the new names as they are published, and older names are not "retrofitted" to newer classifications. (The older names, in particular, can be very messy; I have found a large number of errors in Index Kewensis, some of which were introduced to the online editions by scanning the printed ones, but that only compounded errors that were already in there.) As Brya notes, IPNI is extremely inconsistent on family names and circumscriptions (for example, I was surprised to find numerous taxa of Vitaceae under the family "Ampelidaceae"; note also that IPNI includes data from several different databases besides Index Kewensis, which may disagree among themselves).

The Cronquist system is as hopelessly outdated as the 19th century classifications, but still widely used. I think the APG system has considerable merit, but that too is already being altered. There are numerous different classifications now in use, and all Wikipedia can really do is reflect the extent to which the major ones agree or disagree--in fact this is the very thing that makes Wikipedia useful, in my opinion. In my own articles, I have found it useful to compare and contrast the Cronquist and APG systems because they seem to be the most widely accepted and influential. In the meantime, it's best to refer to the specialists on a particular group, rather than more generalist systems, when discussing the names or circumscriptions of any particular group, whether at the level of genus or family. I will use the APG 2 system when and if it serves my purposes, which it does not always do.

And I do have to ask, if "academicism" is not relevant in an encyclopedia, of all things, then where is it relevant? MrDarwin 16:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It would be overdoing it to use date of publication as the most important criterium to asses the worth of a publication but things are moving terribly fast. Which by the way is why I like having a fixed frame of reference in APG II: it is something that helps orientation.

In the meantime monographs by specialists are appearing at a quite leisurely pace (not enough specialists!).

In stating any taxonomic position it is good to state who exactly held it, and when, also why. Information from the past may be very useful, provided it is put in its proper frame of reference. But Wikipedia has no more than 1% to 5% of the basic information covered so far (and this may be a considerable overestimate). Other than indicated by its NPoV policy the botany in Wikipedia is short on fact and rich in opinion.

P.S. I am not in the least surprised to find that IPNI lists some taxa now in Vitaceae under Ampelidaceae: I would regard this as quite normal. I have seen much weirder things than that!

P.S. II. I am aware of Wikispecies, but I am doing my best to ignore this. It looks fundamentally flawed: What can Wikispecies do except what TROPICOS is doing three times better already? Brya 20:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

re PS II - I mentioned that in regards to what you mentioned about the need to fork Tree of Life. I wonder if reforming Wikispecies might not be a tool for that (to be honest I could never quite figure out what the point of Wikispecies was; I suspect that it was meant to deflect calls that Wikipedia should have articles about all 2-100 million species that exist (or at least the million or two described ones). Guettarda 20:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wikispecies uses the same method of forking as the taxoboxes. I think it hugely inconsistent of Wikipedia to claim to use APG II for the Tree of Life and then not to use the APG II names above the level of order. But I am staying out of taxobox-country. Brya 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

List of systems of plant taxonomy

Just want to say that I think this is an excellent idea, and I'm glad to see somebody doing it. My only suggestion would be to give it a somewhat catchier title, maybe something like "Plant classification systems". MrDarwin 02:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Excellent idea, but don't forget Bentham & Hooker. Berton 12:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both. As to catchy titles, I am shying away from these as catchy titles attract would-be editors and it becomes harder to maintain the entry in good shape. I was just thinking of Bentham & Hooker, but otherwise I am running out of material to add, at least without opening a book. So please feel free to add further systems to the list. Brya 12:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Kubitzki system, you may be correct. What I had in front of me was the volume covering Malvales, which almost exactly followed the APG classification. But come to think of it, the Lamiales volume, which I believe is even more recent, does mostly follow the Cronquist system if I recall correctly. I don't have time to check right now so feel free to modify the article any way you see fit; I mainly wanted to add another "system", both a major and a recent one at that, that had been overlooked. MrDarwin 21:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Malvaceae etc

Hi, I left a comment about your edits at Talk:Malvaceae, but see that you continue to edit without responding. From your contributions list I see that you're mangling the leads of quite a few family articles; although an awful lot to revert, I don't have any problem doing it, so it's in your interest to be a little more responsive. Stan 14:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, your comment completely escaped me. It was not particularly noticeable, as this was an already existing Talk page, out of a quite a number of Talk pages that might be used here. Let me know what you think of what I did there. Brya 15:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

War Edit in Malvales

Brya, thank you for advices, but the peace was already stamped! Berton 23:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. However, as to peace, I will wait till I actually see peace, before feeling relieved. Brya 11:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hamamelididae et al.

Brya - I see you reverted almost all of my edits to these. I would like to point out why I made those edits, and why I plan on restoring them again. I have tried as far as I am able to retain the content and meaning you had made, with almost all my changes being matters of style and presentation to bring the articles into line with wikipedia standards and to improve their readability.

1. Categories. The recommended format for these is [[Category:Things]], not spaced, and the first word capitalised. Although the software will accept other formats such as [[category: things]] (lower case, with a space), I gather this puts a higher load on the wiki servers and is best avoided (why I don't know, but it's what I've read).

2. Bulleted lists. Each bullet point should begin with a capital (wiki manual of style). Hence my changes from "*order ..." to "*Order ...". This does not mean that I am in favour of always capitalising 'order' (I'm not, though some contributors are).

3. Italics for ranks above genus. As you have pointed out yourself, this is an optional format from a botanical standpoint, subject to the editorial policy of each publisher separately. Wikipedia, like most British and American botanical journals, has established (long ago, before I started editing here) an editorial policy of not capitalising ranks above genus. Please respect that policy, just as I am sure you would respect the same policy held by the editors of e.g. Amer. J. Bot. or Bot. J. Linn. Soc., if you were writing for them. Having a free-for-all with different styles on different pages does not look good and will confuse many readers.

Yes, wikipedia is different in that it is open for contributors to suggest changes in the editorial policy, but if that is done, it should be discussed and consensus reached first, not unilaterally. It should also not be done lightly in a situation where a policy change means having to make edits to well over 10,000 pages, with edits that could not be done easily by a robot editor.

4. English grammar and writing. Many of my edits have been to try to improve readability. I am sorry to have to say so, but the readability of your English is not as good as you might think or hope, with unusual sentence construction and wording. This is something I have noticed on many occasions with other writers from Germanic countries when trying to write English. On many occasions I have found it very hard to understand what you are trying to say, even though I have a tolerably decent understanding of botany. I hate to think how a casual wiki reader with less botanical training would cope. Yes, accuracy of detail is very laudable, but if the detail cannot be understood, its value is lost. This is also why I changed your colons in mid-sentence to semi-colons or commas; colons may be normal in Dutch or German, but they look strange to the average English reader.

5. Taxoboxes. Yes, I accept that these are not perfect. But again, if they are to be changed, it should be done by discussion and consent, followed by a robot editor to change them all in one go (as Gdrbot did recently, updating 22,000 taxoboxes in a few days in late Jan-early Feb) once consensus has been reached. Changing or making a few different now does not help, and would in particular hinder robot editing which relies on them all sharing the same characteristics and formatting.

In terms of solutions, I think a new discussion should be started at WP:TOL talk; yes, I remember you put in a very lengthy paragraph on this before, but never got any replies to it from anyone (I fear again not least from its grammatic impenetrability - another case where I found it very difficult to understand what you were trying to advocate; that others didn't reply either suggests they found it difficult too). Try to keep suggestions brief (the "KISS principle"). One suggestion I have is to take a look at the taxoboxes on French wikipedia; they have both "Classification classique" and "Classification phylogénétique" (example). That is one option that could perhaps be followed.

I hope this helps. If you have any other queries, let me know. - MPF 01:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations for your dialogue initiative Michael! Berton 01:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC) I remove the overstated compliment, after reading better, dear Brya forgive me but I still have much difficulty in to read and to speak English. Berton 16:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this note. Let me think about a response. Brya 11:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Brya, please take this as a constructive criticism rather than an insult: while your information is generally factually correct, I have found much of your prose presenting that information to be awkwardly written and in need of improvement. MrDarwin 15:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Of the several isssues you raise taxoboxes are easiest to address, so lets take that first:

1. As I have pointed out several times there is a problem with the claim that Wikipedia follows APG II in the taxoboxes. Implementing such a policy would be simple and straightforward. In practice, instead of actually implementing this, what ‘wikiipedia’ really does is go through weird contortions to make sure that each and every taxobox is in violation of APG II.
2. It is true that nobody responded to what I posted earlier, but there is a simpler explanation for this: nobody cares about taxoboxes for plants (present parties excluded).
3. The french taxoboxes are interesting, a better example for the purposes of discussion is Ulmaceae. The lower half is a phylogenetic tree combined with the order and familie according to APG II. This looks to be allright, although the abundance of color is rather overwhelming, it might work better to just highlight the taxon concerned (order or family) in the diagram. The upper half is a little dubious, as it does not state which system it follows (presumably a version of Cronquist) and it necessarily presents only one viewpoint. Still, as a general approach the problems the average reader may have trouble reading a phylogenetic tree. It may work better to just name the clades the taxon belongs to. Brya 06:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Reality is the way it is, not the way it is prescribed to be. A practical example can be found in common names for plants. The way to describe reality is to record which common names are in use and where (even when). It is quite a different matter to select a name that is more desirable over a name in more widespread use, or even to think up a likable common name to replace an existing one. Of course, consequences go beyond the directly practical. The quality of a wikipedia entry should be evaluated in the light of how it deals with reality. Or perhaps more accurately, of how it lets the user deal with reality. Some key questions in editing are:

• Is the user after consulting a wikipedia entry better placed to deal with this part of reality than he was before?
• Or more specifically, will the proposed edit help the user who consults this entry deal better with reality than if the edit is not made?
• How inviting is the wikipedia entry? Is it so put together as to encourage a user who has real information (that would enhance wikipedia) to actually enter this information (as opposed to being intimidated, or to enter a bit of highschool book learning, or to copy something from a website)

One of the things that does exist in reality is a multitude of styles, style in spelling, style in layout, style in grammar, style in phrasing, style in vocabulary, etc. The use of these may be correlated with geography, general level of education, or with the topic. It is somewhat debatable how many of these styles should be accepted in wikipedia: and the pragmatic answer is that there will be no style that will be universally liked, but any style that is effective in conveying information should be acceptable. This is clear from what the Manual of Style says about American versus British English: a topic in British Commonwealth culture (say a discussion of the plays of George Bernard Shaw) should be in British English, while a topic in American culture (say a discussion of the songs of the American Civil War) should be in American English; otherwise the choice of the first major contributor should be followed. The important thing is to have unity of style within the entry. The Manual of Style specifically disapproves of petty partisans who insist on running round inserting their particular spelling, layout or punctuation in existing articles.

A matter related to style is an appropriate choice of wording. Every field of knowledge has its own vocabulary: words with a specific meaning. Expertise in a field does not consist merely of a general knowledge of the basic facts and principles, nor of an awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of primary sources (something is not sacred merely because it has ancienity, but neither is it faulty merely because it old) but also consists of what terms to use (this is relatively easy) and especially which terms to avoid because they give rise to misunderstanding. An example of a word having a specific meaning in a particular context is "valid". This has a quite specific meaning in zoology and an equally specific (but different) meaning in botany. This made Berton’s use of the word in “valid taxon” in yet a third meaning quite unfortunate, although quite understandable for someone with no better source of information than a dictionary.

The general point I am trying to make is that a one-size-fits-all policy is likely to have horrible effects in dealing with a field of knowledge that is so extensive and varied as botany. A case in point is the circumscription of a particular genus: this will be easy to describe when dealing with a geographically restricted and small genus like Strelitzia but any attempt to describe the circumscription of Quassia (beyond a simple "probably of one species only") requires knowledge in depth of the topic.

A further point, along these same lines, is the awareness of what imagery to avoid. In writing about taxonomy it is important to be circumspect with the name of Linnaeus, otherwise the "Linneaus-is-the-father-of-taxonomy" button will be pushed, the reader will go into orbit and any hope of transferring information is gone.

In many ways editing is like translating. The novice will feel that translating consists of replacing words from one language by the equivalent word in the other language. In practice, as demonstrated by early translation programs, this strategy will give horrendous results. In editing, there is a natural tendency in the novice when encountering text he does not understand at first glance (or does not like for some other reason) to start substituting words words that are more familiar. Although no doubt pleasing in the eyes of that "editor", this is a sure way to mess things up. A word like "dozen" carries a certain meaning, or rather a range of meanings. A number like "12" has a different set of meanings. Sometimes “dozen” and "12" are interchangeable equivalents, but quite often they are not. Unless an editor carefully checks the facts in the matter (or has knowledge in depth of the topic discussed) substituting one of these for the other will mean the introduction of error. The same goes for the tense of a verb: the phrase "will vary" has a range of meanings, and so does the word "varies". Whether the two are interchangeable can only be ascertained by actually checking reality, ascertaining the facts.

Phrasing is important. To use a classic example: the casual observer may think that "Cleopatra was a princess born in Egypt" and "Cleopatra was an Egyptian princess" are two different ways of saying the same thing, but anybody qualified to edit this will know why these are closer to being opposites than equivalents.

This is why proofreading was invented and is widely used. Editing somebody else’s work is a dangerous business.

In those cases where I am in a position to judge, I find that where you summarize "copyedit" in twenty to thirty percent you have converted a factually correct statement into an inaccurate (if not outright erroneous) one and in some ten to twenty percent you have converted a carefully NPoV statement into a much more limited PoV. A user who shares your tastes in style and grammar may read such an edited entry and leave with the feeling he has understood it, but he wil not leave with real information. As I see it, this is the worst of all possible outcomes. I would much prefer it if the user obtains real information, even if this is accompanied by the awareness that he does not understand it completely and needs to do further thinking or reading. The user who comes away misinformed but feeling satisfied (“dumb-and-happy”) is nothing to be proud about.

I am dubious of whether it does me any good to have written the above. On the one hand these are the basic tenets of good writing and good editing, and are foundation stones of the wikipedia Manual of Style. It is almost superfluous to refer to this. On the other hand for anybody not familiar with such matters, these few paragraphs are far too short: he will need a few chapters, well illustrated, in a book devoted to the topic.

As to italicizing. A comparison here to Amer. J. Bot. or Bot. J. Linn. Soc., etc is rather pointless, for many reasons. For one thing such journals have a regular staff and an editorial board, who will set and execute the policy regarding style. These people are trained for the purpose, and do no set policy in a vacuum, as they are in regular contact with readers and contributors, and have a tradition to follow. Also, style in such a journal is not constant: an issue of ten years ago may follow a different style than a recent issue. In wikipedia this is all totally different, as there is a wide range of editors. There is very little awareness regarding botanical names. When I first started here (about half a year back) there was no awareness whatsoever that botanical names even existed, and everybody assumed that the scientific names for plants followed the same rules as those for animals. There is no conceivable way that an informed decision could have been made, and there is no point to referring to such a decision as if it really existed. In the real world there is no close disagreement on italicizing botanical names. There is a long-standing tradition in doing so (for example the volume you referred to, by Pilger, 1926, indeed does italicize names in all ranks), but certainly not universal. As far as standardization in this matter exists this is the example set by the ICBN, which of course is to consistently italicize botanical names. This is increasingly followed (the copy of the Guinness book I saw this week does so), but not universally. In the absence of clear agreement in the real world it is no more than reasonable to decide on this on a case by case basis.

About bulleting: I am afraid you have misread the Manual of Style. The examples make it abundantly clear that what the MoS says about bulleting refers to sentences or parts of sentences: these are to start with a capital, while the ending will be variable. It does not deal with a listing of component items. Here the Manual of Style gives examples demonstrating a great deal more variation in what is considered ideal. A listing of items (bulleted or numbered) is not necessarily capitalised. As to numbering instead of bulleting, the way I work, I would follow the original publication, so if I had the book by Cronquist at hand I would be entering the original numbering. In the absence of a copy of the book I am just replacing the numbers by bullets. However, APG II is not using numbers, so I would not use numbers there in any case.

Obviously all this should not be taken to imply that everything I write is beyond improvement. It is a basic axiom that almost anything can be improved. Indeed I tend to return to my contributions over time and then to adjust and improve them (where possible). However, the law of diminishing returns applies. A half hour spent to shave off a few additional words will usually be wasted, as the user is not that likely to appreciate the extra quality. There is even no guarantee that the improved wording will survive very long. There is no point in going overboard in such matters: everything in good measure. Brya 13:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear colleague of editions Brya, I have to answer to: "This made Berton’s use of the word in “valid taxon” in yet a third meaning quite unfortunate, although quite understandable for someone with no better source of information than a dictionary." I absolutely didn't create a third meaning, which I did it was to use the vernacular, and not the nomenclatural jargon that corresponds to the Latin rite, as in: nomen non rite publicatum, or, name not validly published. I use valid, etymologically from the Latin validus: strong, vigorous, solid. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by lay or not, for lay (or not). If technical jargon is used so we will have to explain it, but if the vernacular be used, not.Moreover I already demonstrated effusively that I have other innumerable sources, besides dictionaries. Among other (sources): Stearn, William T. (2004):Botanical Latin, 4th Ed.Berton 13:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I had hoped that I made the point that "valid" is quite a common word that can be used freely in many contexts. However, in an article (like Malvales or Malvaceae) where the word will be expected to be used in a narrow sense (here in the nomenclatural sense) it is best avoided, in order to prevent confusion. It would be unhandy to have to attach a label each time and every time it is used, as in "valid (as used in botanical nomenclature)", "valid (as used in zoological nomenclature)" or "valid (as used in the non-nomenclatural sense)". It is much easier to use a different phrase here such as "accepted taxon", "recognised taxon", etc. Does that help? Brya 14:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Brya on one thing: I am supremely annoyed to see somebody edit an article with the sole purpose of replacing American English with British English. There are some in Wikipedia (you know who you are) who seem to think that any article that does not deal specifically with the U.S.A. (or some subject restricted to that country) must have all of its words "corrected" to the British spellings. For goodness' sake, if you want to put your stamp on an article then rewrite it, improve it, add information--but changing "color" to "colour" without otherwise editing an article is just petty.

But I have to add that I am almost as annoyed when somebody comes along to edit a well-written article, quite justifiably correcting erroneous information (or introducing new information) but in the process leaving a garbled mess. I believe Wikipedia articles can be informative, factually correct, and well written all at the same time. MrDarwin 14:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Brya 14:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MrDarwin, somebody is seeming a robot. Berton 15:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Mabberley 3rd Ed.

Mabberley will adopt APG II? Dear Brya cite your sources, please. Berton 23:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Going by the preview he published (co-authored, on page 12-19 in the Ruud van der Meijden (2005). Heukels Flora van Nederland (23rd edition ed.). {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)) he will adopt a version of APG II. This is not strict APG II, but an adjusted version, a little closer to what you can find on the ToL-website. Anyway, the new edition of The plant-book should be along in a few months, so then you can see it for yourself. Brya 10:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Type genus

Answer on my user page JoJan 11:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Another answer on my talk page JoJan 08:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Tiliaceae and Tilioideae

With respect to Mortoniodendron in Tilioideae, Stevens probably got it from the Nyffeler et al Malvadendrina paper, ex Organisms, Diversity and Evolution. The combination of cpDNA, pollen morphology and biogeography has convinced me to adopt this placement as a working hypothesis. (The conservative nature of some traits obscures things here, IMHO.)

Your might want to put in something about the other versions of Tilioideae. A quick google suggests that the older Thorne version was approximately Tilioideae+Grewioideae. SRH. 158.152.112.82 21:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of the links on the Tiliaceae page are going to the wrong locations. Presumably you want either to remove them (e.g. Alegra is reduced to Luehea, Columbia to Colona) or add disambiguation pages.

FWIW, the Hutchinson circumscription is not that far from B&H.

Should the paragraph before the Cronquist treatment be placed there.

Of the genera in Tiliaceae sensu Cronquist, Corchoropsis is now in Dombeyoideae (my uninformed guess is that it's sister to Pentapetes) as are Sicrea and Schoutenia, Dicraspidia and Neotessmannia are in Muntingiaceae (where did Cronquist put Muntingia?), Pentaplaris is in Malvoideae, Petenaea is incertae sedis (I've seen a placement in Tapisiaceae (Huertales), at the base of Eurosids II - checking the DNA sequences is on my TO DO list) and Westphalina is a synonym of Mortoniodendron. Kubitzki and Bayer reduce Hainania to Pityranthe. There isn't DNA data for most of these placements (Pentaplaris is an exception), so I don't know the details of the grounds on which Kubitzki and Bayer differed from Cronquist (and Hutchinson). None of the 3 Dombeyoids seem to Core Dombeyoids (which seems to be the Afro-Mascarene genera, plus Eriolaena).

There's a recent monograph on Daphne in which, on the evidence of IPNI (IIRC), Wikstroemia is sunk in Daphne. SRH. 158.152.112.82 22:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I went through the Tiliaceae page, to make some adjustments.

Actually we should have pages for all the new subfamilies, but I don't know if I will get round to that. Looks like quite a bit of work, and my priorities keep shifting. Not to mention the question if it is safe.

PS. I believe there is a mechanism for claiming previous edits, so that you will have only one Talk page to watch. Brya 11:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk Phylocode

Brya, nor everything in Taxon is copyrighted, there is a lot of thing available free in the site IngentaConnect.com, with regard to change the text of place I don't agree because it would break the logical sequence of my argument. The discussion for that should be placed after. Berton 22:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Berton, I don't think it's fair, ethical, or even honest to go back and revise and rewrite text on a discussion page from several weeks or months ago, and to which some of us have already replied. MrDarwin 23:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

MrDarwin, I just add text to complete my argument! Berton 23:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No, everything in Taxon is copyrighted. The inside cover says "All material subject to this copyright may be photocopied for non-commercial scientific or educational advancement with the express permission of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy."

The fact that something is made available free of charge on the ingenta website does not mean that it is copyright-free, only that you don't have to pay to access it. Brya 09:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

History of plant systematics

Dear Brya,

visited your History of plant systematics. It is a somewhat shorter than I expected but I am fully aware of your fondness of brevity.

In my turn, I found myself not quite happy with this phrase: "The earliest system of plant classification probably was that by de Jussieu (inspired on the work of Adanson)"

I am afraid it is a bit misleading. Indeed, I never heard of any authors using the term "system" (when applied to the classification of animals, plants, or minerals) before Linnaeus (this is important, so if anyone ever heard of this, please do report to me).

The first authors who consistently used what Linnaeus called "systematic" arrangement (using systematic categories of class, odrer, genus and species, as opposed to "synoptic" arrangement by means of "endless" dichotomous division) were Rivinus (1690 et ff.) and Pitton de Tournefort (1694). The former arranged plants into orders, genera, and species, the latter into classes, sections, genera, and species. Neither of them used the word "system". To be honest, I do not know who was the first author after Linnaeus to use the term "system" either.

However, if you refer to systems (where plants are arranged using categories and not just dichotomous keys) which both are natural (reflect affinities) and universal (embrace all plants known hitherto), then the most probable candidates are Carolus Linnaeus (in his Classes plantarum (1738)) Albrecht von Haller and Adriaan van Royen (btw, the latter published a natural system nearly co-authored by Linnaeus). All af them clearly precede both A. L. de Jussieu and Michel Adanson.

You might also find useful the current version of Scientific classification (section Early systems / Early methodists) which deals nearly exclusively with botanists. I am planning to extend it and to rewrite the preceding section from Aristotle on. Then there will be a bit more of zoology and still more of botany.

Then, it is probably important to disentangle de Jussieu and his system of plant classification and link de Jussieu to Antoin Laurent de Jussieu, because, as you know, there was at least three of de Jussieus, and his classification to his classification.

Probably, I am tending to overcomplicate the issues, but as a biologist turned historian of biology I am too much aware of the degree of oversimplification biologists tend to exercise when dealing with the history of their science.

Let us hope that our modest efforts when joined will help bringing the taxonomic section of Wikipedia to the highest degree of perfection.

Alexei Kouprianov 19:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Alexei Kouprianov

Netherlands

Hoi my dear Gebruiker:Brya, are you from Netherlands? :-) Berton 11:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Brya, congratulations on last edits (De Candolle system and Bentham & Hooker system). I have the Hutchinson's system (but only the 1st. Edition) and the one of Goldberg, do you find convenient to add them? BTW, Dalla Torre & Harms system is not system, but list, according to Woodland, D. W. (1997):Contemporary Plant Systematics, 2nd.Ed.

Apologize for the prank with your origin. Berton 13:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Goldberg

Dear Brya, I sincerely don't know if he treated of ranks above orders in other works, but he made a dendrogram in the page 27 showing the relationship among the orders, beyond of doing a very interesting comparison among the several systems of the time. Another thing, I think is already is time to begin to include the description of each family in the articles, don't you find? I think that would be better to begin to do new entries in Wiktionary (as a glossary of morphological terms, etc) and to do the link for these terms in Wikipedia, so that the laymen can understand some thing. Regards. Berton 13:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. I think that in that case you should either:

• scan in the dendrogram, and attach it as a picture.
• translate the dendrogram into text (staggered text).

The way it is now, it is hard to fully understand the system.

As to describing families, this should not be done in the systems (these entries are very long already!) but in separate pages. I have made a small start in adding some non-current orders and families under their own names, in some cases tracking their taxonomic history.

Note that adding descriptions would be a massive undertaking, in some cases a link to the Watson & Dallwitz database will serve.

A glossary of morphological terms in wiktionary is a good idea also (I have made a small start) but more than anything else a botany glossary needs pictures, and these are hard to come by (at least free of copyright). In some cases a wikipedia entry is better. It is a lot of work to do this right! Brya 14:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If I scan it and add it in Wikipedia, would not be copyright violation? Note that Shipunov database also presents a version of this system (but I don't know which is the source to Monocots classification?!)

No, I do not want that the descriptions should be done in systems, obviously, I suggested to do a link to Wiktionary to better the understanding of laymen (that the site Watson & Dallwitz does not do). BTW, I was writting Hutchinson system now. Berton 15:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no copyright statement in the publication, and as far as I can tell, as a government publication it is not copyrighted. But even if it were, reproduction of a single diagram, with appropriate credit, should be permissible as "fair use" (although explicit permission is always good to have!). It's when you start reproducing publications extensively or in their entirety that you run into trouble with copyright. MrDarwin 16:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright is tricky, one is allowed to present a brief part "in review". So if you have a many page article and you scan half a page, for use in a discussion of the original this is OK. But exact proportions are tricky. Brya 15:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Goldberg did not assign families to ranks above order, although as Berton notes he includes a diagram showing "suggested phylogenetic relationships" of the orders. I don't think it would be possible to translate the diagram to a formal classification scheme. He followed up with another publication, Goldberg, A. 2003. Character variation in angiosperm families. Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 47: 1-185 (again treating only to the rank of order, although he also included monocots, very superficially).

Aaron Goldberg is not a systematist in the typical sense and as far as I know these are his only publications with respect to plant phylogeny and classification. Many of his ideas on phylogeny and classification are rather idiosyncratic and have not held up in light of recent research (although the same can be said of most pre-molecular systematists, notably Arthur Cronquist). MrDarwin 15:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)~

MrDarwin did you notice the table 2 with characters in evolutionary trends? I found very interesting. Berton 15:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the idiosyncracies; how did he decide that some characters are commonly reversible, other rarely, and others not at all? For example, zygomorphic flowers (which he considers an irreversible character) have reverted to actinomorphic flowers in numerous clades in the Lamiales. Such assumptions (by plenty of systematists other than Goldberg) have led to many erroneous conclusions about relationships. BTW the entire publication is available online as a pdf file here. MrDarwin 16:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, well, well, everything is on Internet! I have to search more on Google! Berton 16:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Things are moving really fast here! Having downloaded the publication and looked at the picture I agree that it would be difficult to translate this in any representation other than the original. I must note that somebody showed me the graphical representation of the Takhtajan system and I would have said the same thing. Still Takhtajan did come up with a formal classification. Nor is a formal classification really necessary. The APG does not use a formal classification either. However, this is not something that somebody other than the original author should do. I still think the original picture here would be very helpful to the reader in getting an impression of the system.

Making judgements on what character changes are reversible and which are not used to be the very stuff of systematics, and still is, here and there. One of the things that DNA gave us is an opportunity to evaluate these judgements and to show which were the useful ones. Brya 20:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)