Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

WikiProject Plants

Main page

Talk

Taxon template

Botanist template

Resources

Events

Requests

New articles

Index

WikiProject Plants was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 17 December 2007.

Archives since 2011

54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63
64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73
74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 6.

Stinging nettle

I suspect that this dab page should be reformed to refer to genera or redirected to Urticeae, but I'm not certain. All five entries are species from two different genera in Urticeae. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it works better as a dab page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But should it list species or genera as its contents? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, if someone was to refer to a stinging nettle they would almost certainly mean Urtica dioica subsp. dioica. Stinging nettle contrasts with dead nettle (Lamium - Lamium album in particular mimics Urtica dioica vegetatively) and help nettle (Galeopsis - which doesn't sting, but is somewhat irritant). It is not the only species present in the country (Urtica urens is an ancient introduction, and other species occur as casuals), but it is the only one known to the general public. Urtica dioica subsp. galeopsifolia is sometimes called stingless nettle (otherwise fen nettle).

nettle gives Urtica ferox as another plant that goes by the name of stinging nettle.

A problem is that stinging nettle is not the prevalent vernacular name in Britain - Urtica dioica is more usually called common nettle, or just nettle.

Urtica gracilis was until recently considered conspecific with Urtica dioica and inherits the common name from it.

A web search for a definition of stinging nettle find the majority of dictionaries give Urtica dioica; one gave Urtica as well.

The species should be retained in the dab page. There is probably a case for adding Urtica, as some usage can be found for stinging nettle being used for the genus, or even multiple genera. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the dab page. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Leaf mimicry" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Leaf mimicry has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 7 § Leaf mimicry until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Bacterial pustule" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bacterial pustule has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 10 § Bacterial pustule until a consensus is reached. Note: Your expertise is requested to determine the appropriate target for this redirect. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ponderosa pine discussion

I've started a discussion at Talk:Pinus ponderosa about when/if we should follow the splits in Plants of the World Online. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup needed at Boehmeria nivea

Are any editors available to take a look at Boehmeria nivea? The article has been stubified following this requested move discussion and content was split to Ramie. I'm not a botanist, so I'm not sure how much potential there is to expand the species article. Any comments at Talk:Ramie#Additional cleanup needed would also be appreciated. Zeibgeist (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silver vine/ Silvervine. Is this non- native plant from Japan invasive in the USA?

There is no discussion of the positive nor negative aspects of this plant’s importation. Livingwage4all (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of a reliable source that discusses silvervine in the US? That's the first step in adding material to Wikipedia. Choess (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aquilegia cladogram as template

In my user space, I completed a large cladogram depicting the phylogeny of the genus Aquilegia based on a 2013 paper. I want to insert this cladogram into both Aquilegia and List of Aquilegia species, and believe that the best way to do that would to be creating Template:Aquilegia cladogram, allowing me to indirectly insert the cladogram without cluttering the page with thousands of bytes of code. Is this a sound approach? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mess with Equisetum praealtum

Is there a horsetail expert among Wikipedians? I have a feeling that on Commons, many photos of Equisetum praealtum are in the Equisetum hyemale category (due to the synonym E. hyemale ssp. affine), including probably all of them in the (cultivated) subcategory. Also, in the Equisetum giganteum category, many photos are of this species, including one used on Wikidata and in many language versions of Wikipedia, including the English one. Kenraiz (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not I. Though, when I am in doubt about plant identities in photos I will go to iNaturalist and look for photos that seem to be identified by actual experts of some level and upload new ones to commons. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall the cladogram from Christenhusz et al. 2019 correctly, recognizing E. praealtum leaves E. hyemale paraphyletic, so I prefer to leave it at subspecies level. Choess (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenraiz @MtBotany - I went through this a while back and sorted out all the North American ones to commons:Category:Equisetum praealtum, so it should be clear except for any added subsequently. The only problem is pics from Japan, for which POWO gives both as native. Cultivated plants are also unpredictable; they would best be avoided in article usage as unreliable anyway. @Choess - I don't get that from reading Christenhusz et al.? They have the two as sister taxa, but nothing to suggest paraphyly resulting; Christenhusz et al.'s second paper in 2021 accepts E. praealtum. IIRC, it was on the basis of their work that POWO split them in the first place - MPF (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenraiz @MtBotany - just been through commons:Category:Equisetum hyemale again; only one new file that was definitely E. praealtum, this now moved - MPF (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF There are many of E. praealtum in Category:Equisetum hyemale (cultivated) (outside botanical gardens, mainly E. praealtum is cultivated, including cv. Robusta). I have removed my photo. Also all photos with "ies.jpg" in Category:Equisetum giganteum looks like E. praealtum. Kenraiz (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenraiz thanks! Yes, true I never bothered with attempting to sort out the cultivated junk. If I had my way, I'd delete all the cultivated cr*p as out of scope 😆 but people will keep on adding the wretched stuff . . . I'll have a go at tackling the E. giganteum mess now - MPF (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the 2019 paper, there's a polytomy at the base of the E. hyemale s.l. clade. Without resolving that, it's not clear whether E. praealtum is sister to E. hyemale s.s. or nested within it. The 2021 paper seems to have just two samples, so I don't think it's probative. I don't feel that strongly about it, but I think the evidence for a split is equivocal. Choess (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinus ponderosa var. willamettensis synonym

I noticed the other day that Willamette Valley ponderosa pine has been listed at WFO as a synonym. I'm inclined to leave it since it is covered in the popular press, but remove the taxobox. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The name appears without a taxon author in this 2022 article from the Canadian Journal of Forest Research. Based on the Bouffier 2003 paper that they cite, the variety may be partially accepted. I think the box can stay, but a clear note of the WFO synonymization is probably also appropriate. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WFO link in this thread and in the WVPP article is for var. washoensis. I think willamettensis stil hasn't been published. Plantdrew (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I got confused somehow. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MtBotany @Pbritti @Plantdrew yes, unpublished, and realistically just a sub-population of P. ponderosa subsp. benthamiana; I'd agree with getting rid of the taxon box, and put the suggested sci name in quotes "willamettensis" but not italics, as it isn't a validly published name - MPF (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MtBotany @Pbritti @Plantdrew I've been bold and removed the box, replaced it with a pic, and tidied up the text a bit - MPF (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Garden Party?

Just wanted to float the idea of a new garden party in the style of Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Philodendron Garden Party. I thought that was a great idea that produced some good success and fostered much-needed community and collaboration. If anyone has ideas or wants to suggest a genus to focus on, please do! Otherwise I will just selfishly pick one myself... ;D Fritzmann (message me) 21:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002 I am moments away from creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Hoya Garden Party! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in 2026 we can have six 2-month garden parties. I'm into houseplants, so if I had to throw some ideas out there, I'd go with Anthurium, Begonia, Dracaena, Maranta, and Syngonium, mostly because these all have lists of red links. Totally open to genus requests/suggestions so there's good variety and collaboration! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a master page for the Garden Parties would be good, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Garden Parties! We can coordinate more there; having more organized events in 2026 would be really nice. Fritzmann (message me) 15:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sounds great! EM (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source evaluation

I recently saw the website bplant.org being cited as a source on an article. From the about page it seems like it is a crowd sourced project, but that it is not open and has some level of editorial standards. Opinions on if they should or should not be cited as a source in Wikipedia? I'm inclined towards "yes", but I need some second opinions on this one. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a paid staff behind the website, which is a good sign. The staff doesn't seem to have the academic credentialing I'd expect for an RS on botany, but they seem earnest in their mission. A cursory look at one of their maps inspires some confidence, especially since they publish their sources. I think it's probably fine when no substitute is available and shouldn't be automatically discounted, but it's not a high-quality RS (yet!). ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across it before (via social media, not Wikipedia). I don't think it is crowd sourced, nor is there a paid staff. Jean Epiphan wasn't mentioned as a contributor last time I looked at it (the FAQ page still says that Alex Zorach is the "sole administrator and author").

I think it is OK to use as a source (I wouldn't immediately dismiss a source authored by somebody with no formal botany education and no editorial oversight, which is what this source is). Plantdrew (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very heavily US-POV biased. I'd say no, not reliable, particularly not when it comes to species native to other parts of the world. Also, very little in the way of statistical data (e.g. plant sizes), and what little there is, is not MOS:METRIC compliant, making it more difficult to use - MPF (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The About page says that it's like iNaturalist, but just for plants, but I don't see where you add observations, or ask an AI for an identification. It reminds me more (at least in aspiration) of the Jepson Flora Project. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some documentation on process - Range Map & Taxonomic Update Progress - bplant.org Lavateraguy (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]