Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:05, 4 December 2008

Clarification

I just realized this is worded incorrectly:

Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following, as determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion on the WikiProject Plants talk page:

1.Agricultural and horticultural cases in which multiple different products stem from the same scientific name (eg. brussel sprouts, cabbage & broccoli). In such a case, a separate page with the botanical description of the entire species is preferred (eg. Brassica oleracea).

2.Plants which are economically or culturally significant enough to merit their own page, using the common name as a title, describing their use. Example: Coffee. (A) separate page(s) with the botanical description(s) of the taxa involved, using the scientific name, is preffered.'

There is really only one exception, exception number 2. Number 1 is actually an exception to number 2, not an exception to the rule of using scientific names.

Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following, as determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion on the WikiProject Plants talk page:

Plants which are economically or culturally significant enough to merit their own page, using the common name as a title, describing their use. Example: Coffee. (A) separate page(s) with the botanical description(s) of the taxa involved, using the scientific name, is preffered.

However, in the case of agricultural and horticultural plants in which multiple different products stem from the same organism (eg. brussel sprouts, cabbage & broccoli) a separate page with the botanical description of the entire species is preferred (eg. Brassica oleracea).

Should this last be 'agricultural' alone, as I suspect that in the case of most horticultural plants in which multiple different products stem from the same organism, the common name might be better to head the article, maybe hybrid roses or varieties of corsage orchids? Obviously horticulture is not might area. And maybe in some cases of agricultural products, too, like the wine grape. KP Botany 01:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps "each significant agricultural or horticultural product should have its own article, with the description of the plant taxon proper as a separate article listed under scientific name." The rule then applies equally to both many-to-one and one-to-one cases. There will be less-significant cases, such as obscure tropical fruits, where there isn't enough material for two separate articles, and it will be a little harder to decide what title is best (although in many cases the "common" name is really really obscure, or ambiguous, and so we use sci name anyway). Stan 17:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I got here to ask a question, but might comment on the above first anyway: "organism" is the wrong word in the proposed rewrite, as an organism is a single plant, and I can't harvest broccoli from the plant one week, then harvest a cauliflower from it the next week. I think "species" is the word you want here, or possibly "taxon". Determination of "obscure" tropical plants shows an inherent geographical bias, too. --Scott Davis 00:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think Stan covered up rather well for my incomprehensible English. There are plenty of tropical plants that aren't obscure. In this instance, by obscure, all that is meant is little known in the English-speaking world or outside of its original habitat. Tropical fruits that are not well known, versus those that are. KP Botany 00:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Single species genera article name

Does this naming convention specify whether the article about the only species of plant in a genus should be named after the genus or the species? --Scott Davis 00:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

They are (or should be) at the genus name - that is the logical place for linking from family pages, for more clearly indicating the genus is monotypic, and for easier searching (most people will search by the genus name alone). - MPF 02:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I waffle on this one myself - if the rule is to go uptree in monotypic cases, would that mean one should prefer "Ginkgophyta" over Ginkgo? There are a bunch of monogeneric families. Going downtree can get you some real tonguetwister titles, like Chiranthodendron pentadactylon. I guess it's a practical compromise to make a special exception for monotypic genera. Stan 17:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think most people are most likely to search for generic pages (Drosophyllum over Drosophyllaceae or Drosophyllum peltatum), so we should probably list monotypic pages downtree to the genus level. Thoughts? --NoahElhardt 20:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That's how I think, too. It's the most obvious. - MPF 00:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. I've summarised this into Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (flora) to save the next person having to read this talk page. As I'm not a botany expert, please correct anything I got wrong. --Scott Davis 22:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Common names

For common names, I would like to see some kind of consensus statement regarding how articles should discuss the use and acceptance of different common names in different countries or regions. I don't believe it's appropriate for a Misplaced Pages article to try to encourage or discourage the use of any particular name--no two editors will agree on what names to encourage or discourage, and each will have their own POV. Most other botanical editors seem to agree with such a policy. There is no international authority for standardization of common names, and there are enough English-speaking countries, each using their own set of common names for plants (and long histories behind those usages), that in many cases there can be no such thing as an international consensus. When a species has multiple common names, it should be considered most appropriate to neutrally identify where particular names are used, and in any particular areas, which are most prevalent. MrDarwin 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically, this is an article content issue not a naming convention issue. It should be obvious that article content discussing common names needs to be sourced, NPOVed, etc, just like any other content. I'm not sure I'd like to get into a dispute about "most prevalent" - how do you source that? I don't think there are many published surveys of nurseries documenting which name they use most often. Stan 18:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed additions to convention

Following from these conversations at WikiProject Plants (here, here, and here), I would like to propose the following additions to this naming convention:

Proposals

• Articles on subgeneric ranks should be named with the abbreviation for the rank in the title.

• Subgenera should be named in the following format: Genus subg. Subgenus.

Examples: Banksia subg. Isostylis and Stylidium subg. Andersonia.

• Sections should be named in the following format: Genus sect. Section.

Examples: Stylidium sect. Debilia and Banksia sect. Oncostylis

• Series should be named in the following format: Genus ser. Series.

Examples: Banksia ser. Spicigerae

• Articles on interspecific ranks should also be named with the abbreviation for the rank in the title unless the rank meets one of the exceptions (economically or culturally notable enough under a single common name).

• Subspecies should be named in the following format: Genus species subsp. subspecies.

Examples: Acacia coriacea subsp. sericophylla and Lilium pardalinum subsp. pitkinense

• Varieties should be named in the following format: Genus species var. variety.

Examples: Anadenanthera colubrina var. cebil and Ulmus pumila var. arborea

• Forms should be named in the following format: Genus species f. form.

• Cultivars should be named in the following format unless they again meet one of the exceptions for using the common name (e.g. Granny Smith and not Malus 'Granny Smith'): Genus 'Cultivar'

Examples: Ulmus 'Churchyard', Banksia 'Celia Rosser'

• Hybrid cultivars should be titled at the cultivar name.
• Hybrid that do not have cultivar names (mostly natural hybrids) and do not have a common name that meets one of the exceptions should follow the naming conventions set down in the ICBN regarding the naming of hybrids. Example: Nepenthes x pyriformis.

Updated cultivar proposal

• Cultivars should be named in the following formats unless they meet one of the exceptions for using the common name (e.g. Granny Smith and not Malus 'Granny Smith'):
  • Cultivars that are derived from a single species (non-hybrids) should be named in the following format: Genus species 'Cultivar'
    • Examples: Stylidium graminifolium 'ST111'
  • Cultivars that are derived from two or more species within a genus (resulting from hybridization) should be named in the following format: Genus 'Cultivar'. These hybrid cultivars should be titled at their cultivar name and not the hybrid name, though redirects should exist.
    • Examples: Rosa 'Abraham Darby' and Ulmus 'Morton'
  • Cultivars with unknown parentage (e.g. many apple cultivars) should be named as if they were in-genus hybrids above if they don't meet the common name exceptions.

Discussion

Please discuss these proposals here.

On hybrids, I'm not sure if there was clear consensus on the use of x versus × in the article title. The multiplication sign is technically correct, but it makes it difficult to link to, which is against the main naming convention. Thoughts on this? Thoughts on anything else here? Cheers! --Rkitko 03:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good but what are your sources for these recommendations? I assume the abbreviations are ICBN or are they? Please annotate with references. If there are none, this is fine. These all follow the same formats I used when presenting researched plant names, so I assume there is a source, but I never had to do anything but follow explicit instructions. KP Botany 03:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the ICBN and haven't read through all of it, but reading through articles on subgenera and sections, etc., these are the abbreviations it used when discussing these ranks. I can't find the specific article within the ICBN that suggests these abbreviations, though. --Rkitko 12:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say stick with the x, since it is indeed easier to type, link to, and above all search for. --SB_Johnny | 07:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We can also suggest redirects that use ×. --Rkitko 12:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What do we do with cultivar article titles which include trade designations such as Ulmus UPMTF (Bosque™) mentioned in this discussion. It could either be Ulmus 'UPMTF' (UPMTF being the cultivar name ) or it could be Ulmus 'UPMTF' (Bosque™) or Ulmus 'UPMTF' (Bosque) if the ™ is required to be omitted as per WP naming conventions. I realise that we can do a redirect, but omitting the trade designation Bosque would make the word "Bosque" disappear from the elm cultivar category, perhaps giving the false impression that there is no article on it. As far as I can tell it appears to be standard practice for the cultivar and trade designation to appear together e.g. here is how the Arnold Arboretum refers to the elm cultivar Morton (Accolade™) --Melburnian 08:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer going by the cultivar name unless the tradename is much more well known to the point that it becomes a culturally or economically significant common name on its own. Maintaining both in the article makes it more difficult to link to and appears to be disambiguation for the sake of nothing. (Is there more than one Ulmus 'UPMTF'?) In my opinion, ™ should never be used in the article title for the same reason I agree that × shouldn't be used for hybrids: it makes it difficult to link to and search for. It's also against WP:MOSTM to use it in text unless making a distinction between a trademarked product and a nontrademarked product (their example is brand name drug vs. generic). I agree the tradenames should remain in the category, which is why it would be easy enough to create redirects Ulmus Bosque or Bosque elm, which we'd have to create anyway and then place the Category:Elm cultivars on one of the redirect pages that has the word Bosque on it so it still shows up on the category. Thoughts? --Rkitko 12:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement with what you have proposed above. I'm not 100% sure on the correct name formatting of the sample trade designation redirect as "Ulmus Bosque" (but can't think of anything better) although I'd tend not to go for "Bosque elm" as this format looks like a common name. In the article text, as opposed to the article title, I think we could use the ™ and fit in with WP:MOSTM because it is important to make a distinction between a trademarked name (e.g. trade designation "Bosque" and a non-trademarked name (e.g. cultivar name 'UPMTF'). My general inclination is to keep the article title simple, but aim for maximum precision in the article text. --Melburnian 14:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. I'd agree it is important to make the contextual distinction, but I would also note that some of those Ulmus articles use the trademark more than once and we'd only need to use it in the introduction. --Rkitko 14:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On cultivar names, I assume the intent is to allow any syntax allowed by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants? In particular, the species should be included in many cases - one example from the Cultivar page is Cryptomeria japonica 'Elegans'. There are probably a few other cases where it is worth pointing to the relevant code and saying "name them according to this, and here is a summary of how those names work". We aren't trying to come up with Misplaced Pages-specific naming, just pick from among the available names (for example, whether to use a cultivar names or a trade names). Kingdon 21:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the cultivar article name, the naming convention as proposed would give us articles such as those listed below on the left and redirects for the extended names like those shown on the right. (I'm assuming both versions are valid - please correct me if I'm wrong)

• Ulmus 'Churchyard' (Ulmus parvifolia 'Churchyard')
• Ulmus 'UPMTF' (Ulmus parvifolia 'UMPTF')
• Banksia 'Celia Rosser' (Banksia canei 'Celia Rosser')
• Cryptomeria 'Elegans' (Cryptomeria japonica 'Elegans')

The question is should the species name be omitted from the title in all cases as proposed or should it be included in some or perhaps all cases. --Melburnian 11:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that when I was looking through the ICBN and ICNCP, but I'm no expert on cultivar naming so I'm not sure why some cultivars receive the species epithet in their title and some don't. Could you explain the reasoning? I assume that the same cultivar name is not given to more than one species cultivar in a genus, thus requiring disambiguation with the species epithet in the title. In my opinion, the simple genus and cultivar name is the easiest and least complex, though I do desire to stick to established external naming conventions if I understood their reasoning. --Rkitko 12:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the ICNCP via ACRA

"The International Code for Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants states:

7.1 The name of a cultivar or Group consists of the name of the genus or lower taxonomic unit to which it is assigned together with a cultivar or Group epithet. The name may be written in a variety of equivalent ways.

Ex. 1. Fragaria 'Cambridge Favourite', Fragaria ananassa 'Cambridge Favourite' ..." --Melburnian 12:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I slightly prefer "ssp." to "subsp.", just for brevity. On cultivars, it depends on the nature of the cultivar. If it's developed from a known species and it's known that nothing else got mixed in, then then species name is appropriate. In practice in WP, I suspect that most cultivars significant enough to get article treatment are going to be based on crosses or have uncertain parentage, and so genus+cultivar epithet is going to be what we usually see here. Stan 14:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There is some reason to use "subsp." over "ssp.," although I don't know what--it may be in the code, or it may be a stylistic preference, but I used to use ssp. for materials, but last time I was writing stuff up I was required to use "subsp." for everythinng, horticultural and botanical works. So, if we opt for one over the other, we should, again, find out reasons for preferences, if any. But it does seem that "subsp." is used over "ssp." KP Botany 14:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we could come to consensus that either is acceptable since there is prevalent use of both. I'd be fine with that. The St. Louis ICBN does seem to use subsp. instead of ssp. It's not a big deal to me. What does everyone else think about ssp. vs. subsp.? I also wondered if we should write out conventions for subvar. and subsect. and so on. I wonder if we'll ever get to that level of taxonomic description, though! Cheers, --Rkitko 01:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Assuming both versions are considered equally valid, I prefer "subsp." over "ssp." here because it is easier for readers unfamilar with taxonomy to work out what the abbreviation refers to. --Melburnian 01:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

My belief has been that the species name is supplied when the parentage is a single species, as opposed to a hybrid or unknown. I didn't realize names with and without a species can be equivalent in the ICNCP (according to the other comments here), but Stan seems to share my understanding. For example, see where most cultivars have species listed but Aspidistra ‘China Sun’, for example, does not. Or (Asimina triloba 'Mango'). Another lists with species is .

I agree with you - I was actually surprised to find a while back that it *is* acceptable to drop the species name. Pondering Rkitko's comment above, I've investigated where cultivar epithets may occur multiple times within a genus and come up with a couple of examples:

Euphorbia 'Variegata' could be:

Euphorbia amygdaloides 'Variegata'

Euphorbia characias 'Variegata'

Euphorbia milii 'Variegata'

Euphorbia submammilaris 'Variegata'

Salvia 'Alba' could be:

Salvia farinacea 'Alba'

Salvia greggii 'Alba'

Salvia japonica 'Alba'

Salvia jurisicii 'Alba'

Salvia microphylla alba

Salvia verticillata 'Alba'

(there's also Salvia officinalis 'Minor Alba')

I suspect that the repetition of cultivar epithets within a genus, as a legacy of the days when cultivar epithets were latinised, is probably quite prevalent. I think that including the species name for a cultivar , where the cultivar is derived from a single species, is more informative and less prone to ambiguity. Melburnian 01:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, excellent work, Melburnian. I suspected the reason for the exclusion of the species name was for in-genus hybrid cultivars. In light of the need for disambiguation in some genera (I'm sure there are similar cases in Hibiscus and Hosta), I'd agree we need to disambiguate with the species name for single-species parentage. I'll propose the appropriate changes. --Rkitko 01:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I do prefer "subsp." over "ssp." because I do sometimes see "spp." when "ssp." is written or vice versa, and "subsp." eliminates this issue. I would like to clarify and quote what the code says rather than making assumptions though, and just go with it, as there is no reason not to. I have no comment on the cultivars and whether or not they include specific epithets, but this is discussed, I think, in M*!rmbly whatever it's called. KP Botany 06:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?

Well, do we have consensus to add these as they stand currently? Or does it need more work? Agree with most but have a problem with one or two things? Let's discuss! --Rkitko 21:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the multiplication sign × versus the letter x discussion above, and given that both symbols are currently randomly used, I'd like to propose that × be used for hybrid names as I believe that there are no technical restrictions to using it in article titles; for example the Misplaced Pages article × has existed since June 2006. The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature Recommendation H.3A states:

H.3A.1. The multiplication sign in the name of a nothotaxon should be placed against the initial letter of the name or epithet. However, if the mathematical symbol is not available and the letter "x" is used instead, a single letter space may be left between it and the epithet if this helps to avoid ambiguity. The letter "x" should be in lower case.

Given that the mathematical symbol *is* availalable to us, I think that we should use it, both for article names and within articles for consistency and to avoid the need for piped links. Redirects using the x version would cover searches. Here's how this proposal would affect current article names:

• Disocactus ×hybridus (leave as is, create redirect from Disocactus x hybridus)
• Ulmus × hollandica (move to Ulmus ×hollandica , redirect from Ulmus x hollandica)
• Fatshedera (move to ×Fatshedera)
• Geranium x magnificum (move to Geranium ×magnificum)

--Melburnian 09:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've created the redirect for the first; holding fire on the moves, as I'd like to know a bit more about that H.3A.1 rec. - is it still there in the new Vienna Code? (despite their saying the e-version would be available first by May, and then July, it still isn't up, and I don't have a paper copy). It is such a weird and counter-intuitive recommendation that I wouldn't be surprised if it gets changed to the more logical (and traditionally far more widely used) spaced format (i.e., Disocactus × hybridus, × Fatshedera). Also - it's only a recommendation, not a requirement; to me the '×' symbol appears sufficiently similar to an 'x', that a hybrid name with no space (particularly if it begins with a vowel) looks like a normal name beginning with an 'x' (Pinus ×attenuradiata = "Pinus xattenuradiata"). How long till Rosa xanthina gets misinterpreted as Rosa × anthina?? As an aside, does anyone know when and why this recommendation was made in the first place? Whose idea was it, and how was it pushed into the ICBN?? Even though it is in my old paper copy of the Sydney Code, they did not actually follow it; cited hybrid names are spaced as × Fatshedera, Disocactus × hybridus, etc. - MPF 10:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

MPF, I'm not sure if this is the most up-to-date edition or why it was taken down with no explanation, but this is the article H.3 of the Vienna code from archive.org. View the entire archived contents here. Does that help? Looks like Vienna allows for space if it "best serves readability". --Rkitko 19:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Never thought of archive.org – saves the day! (unless of course they change it from that draft, tho' that seems unlikely if the dead tree edition is already out, they won't want to differ from that). Definitely a change from the St Louis Code. I'd like to suggest that we adopt a single space on each side of the times sign for clarity, as above: Disocactus × hybridus, × Fatshedera. One possible 'extra' in article space (not relevant to page titles) is to use a nbsp between the times sign and the epithet (Disocactus × hybridus, × Fatshedera), to avoid breakage at the end of a line. - MPF 20:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that the the later Vienna Code (good find Rkitko) is more flexible and states that "the exact amount of space, if any, between the multiplication sign and the initial letter of the name or epithet should depend on what best serves readability", and given MPF's examples of how putting in this space does just that I concur with his suggestion.--Melburnian 00:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree, for the sake of disambiguation. But is there enough consensus here to introduce these new pieces into the convention? Certainly the uncontested parts (such as naming of var., subsp., sect., subg., etc.) seems to be ok with everyone involved. I've tried to gain more interest in discussion. Do we think it's time to insert these into the convention? (And just for the sake of continuity, it appears as if the archive.org links I posted earlier no longer work, but the Vienna Code is up and running here.) Cheers, --Rkitko 02:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's a good idea to introduce the non-contested parts into the convention (they've been open for discussion for nearly two months now), and list the remaining items as "issues for further discussion". Melburnian 13:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Monotypic genera

Folks, I've seen a bit of talk about the naming convention that states monotypic genera should be titled at the genus title, e.g. Oreostylidium, not Oreostylidium subulatum. There appears to have been little discussion on it, though most people abide by it. I was wondering if it might be productive for us to discuss it and affirm, amend, or repeal this provision. Thoughts? Arguments for and against? And what about the bit about monotypic families? --Rkitko 21:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A search on TOL archives gave a few results. cygnis insignis 23:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that if there is only one article covering multiple ranks, we ought to choose a consistent rank for the title. Genus seems as good as the other options, so I am happy with the status quo on this point. I don't feel particularly strongly about it though.

I do, however, feel strongly that we should not be mandating that the various ranks of a monotypic taxon all be treated in the one article. It is often the case that you'll have plenty to say about the species, and then distinct things to say about the monotypic genus (e.g. it may have had previous circumscriptions that were not monotypic; it may have been placed in various families, and in various positions within a family; it may have been promoted or demoted at some point, or synonymised with another genus for a time, or another genus may have been synonymised with it for a time), and then distinct things to say about the monotypic family (e.g. it may have had previous circumscriptions that were not monotypic; it may have been placed in various orders, and in various positions within an order; it may have been promoted or demoted at some point, or synonymised with another family for a time, or another family may have been synonymised with it for a time). In such cases, a "rule" that monotypic taxa should be treated all together really sucks. An example: surely no-one would argue that Misplaced Pages would be improved by merging the currently monotypic Dryandra ser. Floribundae into Banksia sessilis. Hesperian 01:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, each naming convention comes with the caution that common sense should apply above all else. For example, we decided to move Ginkgo to Ginkgo biloba to make way for an article on the genus that includes extinct taxa and fossil history. I also agree that taxa that are no longer valid can conceivably have very interesting stand-alone articles. So, in order to avoid the problem you describe at the end of your comment, how would you suggest a possible rewording to avoid abuse of the convention, if such a statement is necessary? --Rkitko 02:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, nothing in WP:NC (flora) would support such a merger. The policy applies to monospecific genera and monogeneric families, not to all monotypic taxa. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Affirm. Scientific papers use the genus name when discussing monotypic taxa. That tendency is probably even stronger in horticultural or other contexts. Kingdon (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Affirm, as per Kingdon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Amend. A lecture by E. O. Wilson provided a citation for my objection to the current guideline. He describes a song, by elementary school teacher Karen Bloom, as the essence of his lecture on Systema Naturae. The first part goes:

When we study living creatures, we must call them the right name/ so we can group them by their features and how they are all the same./ Of course Aristotle tried to group things based on what he had observed,/ but Linnaeus used a method where he named them with two words, binomial nomenclature ...

Genus is not as good as the other options because:

The basic unit Linnaeus recognized is a species — thanks heavens he hit on that ... (Wilson)

The rest of that contribution to this discussion helps to illuminate why the articles should be named for the species. I agree there should be a consistent rank if there is only one article. I also agree that a monospecific genus could be split to its own article for the taxonomic history, the other facts on the plant would therefore be in an article with the name of the species. Consider what would happen if an article was split, everything but the taxonomy would be split to a new article with the full name of the plant.

The rationale for choosing genus over species and family was never given, I suspect it emerged from discussions on other guidelines, and none is given in this discussion. That "scientific papers use the genus name" is a true statement, but so is scientific papers use the species name! The latter is more often the case in the searches I tried, eg, although enthusiasts magazines tend to use the former a bit more. The horticultural consideration is irrelevant unless it is moved to a common name, eg. Cephalotus to Cephalotus. If one takes the view that title should be an organisms highest unique rank, then the title of my example would be Cephalotaceae. Nah, we should KISS and heed Wilson's words when he says:

Linnaeus’ second major contribution was a binomial nomenclatural system, ...

I don't think I've overlooked anything. The accepted name for my example is Cephalotus follicularis, our general guidelines on article titles strongly suggests that we should use that name. cygnis insignis 21:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Affirm, as per Kingdon. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No strong opinion but would like to see a clear statement on the naming guidelines pages. Have recently had some confusion on this on WT:ARTH. Shyamal (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Affirm. It has the advantage of brevity (always desirable, especially when the species epithet is a tongue twister, witness Chiranthodendron pentadactylon for example), and corresponds to less formal usage, which is preferable in an encyclopedia written for a general rather than a scientific audience. At the same time, we should allow splitting in the handful of cases where the coverage is getting lengthy, or has a natural dividing line for some reason (many extinct species, etc). Stan (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Although using just the genus seems cleaner, I think Cygnis insignis has a good point. In a sense, placing it at the species name says "this is a notable species, and, oh, by the way, it's the only one in its genus," whereas placing it at the genus name says "this is a notable genus, and, by the way, if you are looking for information about its species, look no further, because there is but one." On philosophical grounds, I support species, but since it's an encyclopedia, I could go with either option as long as it's consistent.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Amend. Per arguments by cygnis insignis w. the addition of the earliest comment by Hesperian on monotypic taxa (genera, families, etc) that have been polytypic earlier. I see no reason for not being exact (i.e. using full binomial) - being a member of a monotypic genus does not change that. • Rabo³ • 11:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Affirm because, typically, Misplaced Pages genus articles have information on species, while species articles don't have information on the genus, so this convention, although imperfect, fits in best with the established practice here. Two separate articles may be justified if there is not a substantial duplication of content. Melburnian (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion opened at Village Pump

Given the disputed tag and that editors seem at loggerheads about the above section , I have opened a discussion of this issue at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (flora). UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I moved this section up out of the way of the main discussion --PBS (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Breach of the Naming Conventions policy

The current wording of this GUIDELINE is in breach of the Misplaced Pages:Naming Conventions POLICY specifically the first section Use the most easily recognized name.

It needs to be altered so that it complies with the policy. See for example Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (aircraft) or Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)for two examples that comply with the naming conventions but also have specific guidance for their area. --PBS (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• I mostly think this conflict is more hypothetical than real. For the vast majority of plant species, the scientific name is the most easily recognized. For example, Hosta is rarely known as "lily plantain" or whatever that so-called common name is. Likewise for, say, Cymbidium tracyanum (just to pick one example of a cultivated plant which is generally referred to by the scientific name by orchid growers, orchid enthusiasts, and scientists alike. In other cases, common names are indeed common but differ geographically or according to specialty, making it fairly impractical to name articles after them. There does, however, remain an area of names like Oak where there is indeed a conflict between the different guidelines/policies. Kingdon (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. The genesis of this convention was an attempt to determine what is the most easily recognized name. The regional differences are astounding. Unlike birds and other vertebrates, plant common names vary so much that in fact the scientific name is exactly the most easily recognized by the widest number of people. The exceptions we've noted, economically or culturally important species, speak to your objection. The vast majority of plant articles should be maintained at the scientific name. --Rkitko 03:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse current convention. Hesperian 03:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Naming Conventions requires a reasonable minimum of ambiguity which can only be achieved by using scientific names in many cases. Many common name titles end up being disambiguation pages because they apply to multiple species, for example Red Gum, Ironwood, Ice plant, Dusty Miller etc. Melburnian (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with everything said so far by the respondents, and will add that choosing one common name from among several alternatives can be a subtle (or not-so-subtle) way to push POV, especially if the choice is of one regional variant over another.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

From what has been said then no one will object to adding the sections "General guidelines (first paragraph)" and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Common names from the guideline Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (astronomical objects) --PBS (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would object to that. Hesperian 13:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What specifically is it that you object to in those two sections. --PBS (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian Please explain this revert. What is with the changes that I made that were not correct. --PBS (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) I see little point to it. First, there is a verified reliable English source for every scientific name, so that paragraph essentially gives no guidance to an editor if applied to plants. Second, the key issue with common names, and the one that caused the current consensus to be laboriously hammered out by many fractious editors, is that plants of widespread distribution often have multiple common names, all of which are widely regionally used, and all of which are unambiguous in their regions. Perhaps you could give us some examples of the problem you are trying to solve here.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the wording "Common names should be used for article names in preference to official names where these are widely used and are unambiguous." is to cover your concerns about more than one local name. My concern is that there is a clear Misplaced Pages POLICY (not a guideline). See Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name this current guideline can be read as contradicting the POLICY. If you do no see it that way then you will not object to the addition to this page of the two paragraphs I have listed above. --PBS (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with everyone who supports maintaining the pre-"dispute" wording. PBS, your presonal objection is not worthy of a dispute tag being added to a policy page that was adopted by the community, and which clearly has strong support. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a policy page it is a guideline. WP:NC is the naming convention policy page. --PBS (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No, this is a policy page. It said so until editors today chose to change it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding a tag does not make something policy. Only widespread consensus that it is a standard which all editors must follow can do that. Please supply a link to the discussion asserting such consensus; and remember WP:Consensus can change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You read that differently than I do. "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow. ... Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur." Policies rarely have exceptions, while guidelines are more likely to have exceptions. The Flora naming conventions has been applied as policy for the last two years, so I do not know where or when any consensus discussion occurred, but the initial discussion of the page is here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I quote the lead, which conveys the difference in essence between the two terms. This page has never been a policy; it is a guideline to the application of WP:NAME, and has never claimed to be otherwise. Whether it is a sound guideline is what we are now discussing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• This would appear to be an unnecessary conflict. All of the reasons cited to not use an alleged "common name" are good ones; and they apply everywhere in Misplaced Pages: Where there is no overarching common name, or there are several common names in regional usage, then the "common name" section of WP:NAME does not apply, by its own terms. Is there any reason for avoiding a genuinely common, non-regional, unambiguous common name (like Norway maple instead of Acer platanoides?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  Yes. Each such name would require a lengthy discussion process to determine that it is, in fact, a "genuinely common, non-regional, unambiguous common name". We'd have to check for the common name in all the various published floras and guides in every country. It may not be known by that name universally. That is, it could conceivably have been imported to New Zealand where it acquired a new "common name". Such oddities are more the norm than unambiguous common names. There are also "common names" that, while appearing uniformly in guide books, are never used by anyone other than publishers of guide books. The "common" names of most bryophytes fall into this category. Even if we were to check all the field guides and floras, and find that they agree on the "common name", we would have no means of determining whether that name was used by anyone other than the publishers of those guides and floras. Thus, we would have to rely on original research for a determination. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  Please consult WP:RM and its subpages before you continue with this line of nonsense; naming discusssions should take five or ten days. This argument from perfection is always present; if this were the case, the article is flawed now by omission. Until some Kiwi editor corrects us, we will be wrong; but that's the advantage of being a wiki: articles can be moved as we discover more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  Nonsense? You say that naming discussions "should take five to ten days", but I have seen plant article naming discussions (even under the current system) drag on for weeks or even months. With a quarter of a million plant articles potentially affected, and with a very small number of experts who even have regular access to the relevant information and interest, it is not nonsense to worry about this. Having to watch naming discussions regarding the move of a quarter of a millon articles is not an advantage. Having a straightforward guideline that can be applied uniformly without resort to weeks of discussion is an advantage. My limited editing time is better spent adding content than in endless name debates. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  We should not inconvenience our readers for our own convenience; and Petey exaggerates: naming discussions conducted by editors who can muster evidence and argument and closed by competent admins do take five to ten days, even over much more controversial things than most plants. The difficulty may be that "per WP:FLORA" is being used instead of argument - a losing tactic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  I do not exaggerate. I have been following one plant article naming dispute since June of this year. It was only resolved a few hours ago. There are about a half dozen others I know of that have gone on nearly as long. Speculate all you like about discussions you have not seen, but please don't post such empty speculation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  Link, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I bet the Iranians don't call their local population of the trees "Norway maples". :-) Many times the assumption of a single common name simply reflects our ignorance. Stan (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  Iranians do use English common names, when speaking English. The Farsi name for Acer platanoides belongs to the Farsi Misplaced Pages; which this is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We are only interested in common English names, it is unlikely that Iranians would be using English when describing trees. All the objections raised so far don't seem to in breach of common names, but the wording of this guideline is the opposite of the Naming policy. It is up to the person proposing that the scientific name be used to show that the common name is not appropriate. It is not for the proposer of a common name to show that it is "sufficiently significant economically or culturally" --PBS (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the two policies are at variance with each other as currently worded, but it does not follow that this one must change. It would be just as easy to insert a line into the general policy noting the exception made for naming plants. The current flora naming policy is designed to avoid a quarter of a million potential article naming discussions to determine the "general" name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PBS and Septentrionalis that there is a problematic incongruity between the general naming convention policy and this specialized naming convention guideline. Specialized guidelines should complement, not contradict, the general policy. I appreciate that in some cases there are multiple common names for the same topic; in those cases I can see using the scientific name to resolve the issue. But when there is clearly a most common name, to go with the virtually unheard of scientific name is not the right way to go. Perhaps a good example of this Poison oak, which is currently a dab page which lists two slightly different varieties (western and atlantic), each having a common name redirect to the associated article which is at its obscure scientific name (Toxicodendron diversilobum and Toxicodendron pubescens). If you look at the two very similar articles it should be obvious that the only reason the whole topic is not covered in one article (with title Poison oak) is to abide by this problematic guideline: "Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except..." Yes, that guideline is in dispute, and unhelpful results such as illustrated by the Poison oak example is why. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No, there are two separate species, whose taxonomic distinctiveness is at issue in some of the literature. To put both species on the same page obliterates the use of the Taxobox, conflates use of the two names, and therby would make the result unhelpful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe Toxicodendron diversilobum and Toxicodendron pubescens can be mini articles with their own taxoboxes, both linking to the same article, Poison oak. The one article would be much more helpful as it can explain what the two species have in common as well as how they differ. Or, can we have two taxoboxes on the same page? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Two taxoboxes on the same page is not a good idea, for a variety of reasons, including page layout. Some of the articles on books of the Bible are testament to that (pun intended). Now, for a situation like "poison oak", it is potentially reasonable to have the Poison oak article in addition to the two species articles, provided that there is some strong relationship between the topics. Offhand, I can't think of a specific case where I've seen this done, but I know I've seen it from time to time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not find it very wise to alter a system that works, because there are some minuscule number of exceptions that might cause problems. If we start doing it this new way of using common names, we are going to have a much larger problem and spend more time in cantankerous arguments over which common name to use, in a greater number of articles. Hardyplants (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This system does not work, or rather works only for the extreme minority who find plantanoides more English than Norway. That is precisely our complaint. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You are referring to a different majority/minority. And , no we don't find it "more English", we find it less ambiguous. The standard policy specifically advocates unambiguous names. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Among other things, but Norway maple is unambiguous; that's one reason we should use it.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what is wrong with an article labeled Great Basin Bristlecone Pine? It is a well known common name. How often is Pinus longaeva actually used in conversations? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think how often a term is "used in conversations" is an appropriate metric for an encyclopedia. The word common in "use the most common name" means often used or perhaps broadly used, but not vernacular. Therefore, if you want to determine the most common name, you need to count both informal conversational uses and formal uses such as textual mentions in scholarly journals. A googlefight restricted to English pages is reasonably informative here: "Pinus longaeva" triples "Great Basin Bristlecone Pine". I think it is pretty clear which is the more common. Hesperian 00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The common names naming convention clearly states: "when choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Misplaced Pages put into the search engine?". Do you really think the average user of Misplaced Pages is more likely to search for "Pinus longaeva" than "Great Basin Bristlecone Pine"? Taxon terminology is generally used only by scientists, not by the average user of Misplaced Pages, and so should not be used in the names of articles, when more commonly used names exist that refer to the topic of the article (yes, even if they are part of the vernacular). This idea that vernacular terminology should be discounted is counter to the whole Misplaced Pages naming ethic. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think the average user of Misplaced Pages is more likely to search for "Pinus longaeva" than "Great Basin Bristlecone Pine"? Yes, absolutely. You appear to be suffering under the delusion that "average user" means "lowest common denominator". It is unnecessary and unbecoming to presume that the "average user" is a dumb-ass. We have an extremely broad readership, many of whom possess some modicum of intelligence and general knowledge. On top of that, the population of "users" of Pinus longaeva is not identical to the population of "users" of Misplaced Pages in general: there is a skew towards people who have an interest in plants, and specifically conifers; the fact that they have sought out such an article bears testimony to that. Bearing all this in mind, I can see no reason to presume that these google counts are grossly misrepresentative. Remember that the google counts are three to one in favour of P. longaeva; you're going to need to impute a pretty powerful effect to turn the tables on that. "The average user is a dumbass" would work, if it were true, but it ain't. Hesperian 01:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. As I've said elsewhere on this page, the greatest thing about the convention pre this discussion is we didn't have to keep having these pathetic arguments over which name is most common. I haven't had to deal with garbage like this for two years, and I miss the peace and quiet already. Hesperian 01:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

How about Intermountain Bristlecone Pine instead, that's How I fist came across this species.Hardyplants (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, so choose one and use a redirect. Either is better then Pinus longaeva which does not help at all as a common name. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

All this needs is a brief passage, summarizing what we agree on here, but not imposing Neo-Latin where it is not necessary; something like this:

• When a species of plant has several common names, Misplaced Pages should use the Neo-Latin, scientific name for it; above all, we should not prefer one national name to others, but should be neutral.
• When a common name applies to several unrelated species, as with Ironwood, the common name should be a disambiguation page among articles for each species; see WP:PRECISION
• When, however, a species has a single common name in English, not used for other species, then the article should use the common name; see WP:COMMONNAME. There should be a redirect from the Neo-Latin name.
  • Whether a group of closely related species, which bear a common name otherwise unambiguous, should be merged is an editorial decision; if they are, there should be redirects or stubs for the individual species. One should remember that the decision whether two separate populations of plants are distinct species or varieties of a single species is often somewhat arbitrary.

This really does seem very heavy whether over so small and limited a change of guidance as the third and fourth paragraphs here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

But WP:COMMONNAME advocates the most common name, not the "common name" (in the nomenclatural sense). Even if we change NC(flora), your wording above would violate that primary policy by advocating a less common name when the (botanical) common name is less common than the scientific name (as with algae and bryophytes, e.g.). Out of the 100,000 species of diatom, how many are actually known by their common name? What about the 12,000 species of moss? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If the species doesn't have a common name, or the Neo-Latin is most common, then we use it. If anything I have said above actually supports EP's figment, it ought to be rephrased. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the current convention as it was some time ago.

1) This page doesn't contradict WP:NC. This page is linked directly from WP:NC and is therefore part of the conventions itself.

2) Many (in fact, most) plants have either several established common names in different regions or none at all (except for ad hoc loan translations from Latin). Moreover, common names are notoriously ambiguous. What is short sedge? What is grey sedge? It depends on your village. There is no source where one can find whether a common name is unambiguous and widely used, therefore Common names should be used for article names in preference to official names where these are widely used and are unambiguous doesn't make sense and goes against WP:V and WP:NOR, the most fundamental policies of Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, unlike common names, scientific names are standardized (w.r.t. capitalization, spelling variants and so on) and make linking much more easy.

"

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

"

Colchicum This page is not policy it is a guideline only the page WP:NC is policy, all the other naming conventions are guidelines that clarify and supplement the policy page. As far as I am aware this is the only naming convention guideline that directly contradicts it. While this page contradicts the Naming Conventions policy page then its usefulness as a guideline is minimal. --PBS (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

3) Species, genus, family and other taxa are scientific notions. The articles are about species, genera, families and so on. However, there is no scientific classification in the popular worldview. The common names refer to something unranked which is not necessarily monophyletic and doesn't necessarily correspond to any taxon. Misplaced Pages should rely on sources. Academic sources, the best kind of sources we can find (and actually the only kind of sources that refers to specific taxa rather than to some general idea of a plant), rarely use common plant names.

"

Misplaced Pages determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

"

4) The current formulation does allow common names on a case-by-case basis. If you like to rename Acer platanoides to Norway maple, which is not entirely unreasonable, you don't need to change this page. However, even Google Scholar yields 2,040 hits for "Norway maple" and 4,750 hits for "Acer platanoides" (though only a half of both are articles in biology). Colchicum (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be satisfied with an explicit and prominent statement to the effect that this page does allow common names. That would have resolved the poison oak question, and placed this page in compliance with WP:NC. The suggestion above limits the extent to which common names can be used, so we don't get into edit wars over whether the etymologically Japanese or etymologically Chinese one is more common. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the links to those Google Scholar results; I suspect that uses of Norway maple as a form of timber are largely omitted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

, , and, what is much more interesting, and . Note, however, that the article is not at all about the form of timber. Colchicum (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The wood is hard, yellowish-white to pale reddish, with the heartwood not distinct; it is used for furniture and turnery. This should probably be enlarged, as the principal economic use. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Whether a group of closely related species, which bear a common name otherwise unambiguous, should be merged is an editorial decision" - in such cases I usually make a redirect-to-genus and discuss the issue there in the intro. E.g. in some cases, there is a distinct AmE and BrE common name. Redirecting to genus and discussing the issue in the intro will resolve such ambiguities with the least fuss. When such species form a clade, subgenus or otherwise, it may be well warranted to split them off to a separate article. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree about Anglo-American differences; this proposal would say they must be dab pages, although I would have no objection myself to combining two stubs into one long article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one priority here

We have, or should have, multiple priorities in choosing article titles; namely:

• broad accessibility i.e. use the most common name;
• minimum ambiguity;
• neutrality;
• an encyclopedic tone; and
• consistency across articles.

(I'm sure there are others that I haven't thought of) The relative importance of these could be debated forever, but clearly none of them are unimportant. I think the problem here is caused by the fact that one of these priorities has been put on a policy pedestal, to the exclusion of the others. If we consider this debate in the context of all of these priorities, we end up with something like the following:

• broad accessibility: the scientific name would be the "most common name" in the vast majority of plant articles, but the tiny remainder, for which a common name is the "most common name", would include many of our most high-profile articles. There would of course be a class of articles in which the "most common name" is moot.
• minimum ambiguity: common names are very often ambiguous, scientific names pretty much never. This is the whole point and great advantage of a formalised nomenclature: you get to cut away the nomenclatural difficulties.
• neutrality: the choice of common name may reflect nationalistic or other bias (this is not a hypothetical argument); use of the scientific name may, very rarely, imply the taking of a position in a taxonomic dispute.
• an encyclopedic tone: In most of the contexts in which a plant article may be read—botany, land management, forestry, agriculture, horticulture...—the use of scientific names is the more encyclopedic. In some, the use of a common name would be downright objectionable, whereas the use of the scientific name is almost never so.

Which brings me to consistency across articles. On the basis of all these priorities, WP:PLANTS has adjudged that the vast majority of plant articles obviously should be entitled with their scientific name, and that the remainder arguably should be; it has therefore adopted the convention of naming them all in this way, for the sake of consistency across articles. To do otherwise would be to sell off four of the above priorities to pay for one. It is not clear to me why this should be so objectionable. It comes down to individual weighting of the priorities, does it not? And who better to assign weights to the above priorities than the people who contribute in the field?

Hesperian 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• • I cannot agree. Consistency across articles is an unattainable, and probably undesirable, pipe-dream - we cannot hope to obtain it as long as anybody can edit; in the case we are considering (a species has a single common name in English, not used for other species) of Norway maple and the like, the English name is infinitely more accessible, equally ambiguous, equally neutral, and equally encyclopedic. Therefore we are throwing away a great good, which it is consensus desirable, for the sake of a consistency which will be invisible and useless to the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Consistency is indeed attainable, or indeed very nearly so, within the field of plant taxa, even though it be unattainable across the board. I cannot imagine why it would be undesirable is this context.
      "Infinitely more accessible" is, you will grant, hyperbole; in turn I will grant you that "Norway maple" is indeed somewhat more accessible. Yes, equally ambiguous. Yes, equally neutral, except for the eternal dispute over "Norway maple" versus "Norway Maple", which I don't really understand. I take issue with equally encyclopedic; I should say that the scientific name is a good deal more encyclopedic. On balance, I would consider the two titles about equally meritorious; personally I would lean towards the scientific name.
      My previous point stands: this comes down to the weighting of priorities. Essentially, your argument hinges on your opinion that accessibility is "a great good" whereas consistency is "probably undesirable". We plant article editors share an opinion that accessibility and consistency are both great goods, and both attainable. The adoption of a scientific name convention gives us consistency, neutrality, minimum ambiguity and an encyclopedic tone, arguably for the loss of some accessibility for some of a very small class of admittedly high profile articles. Hesperian 01:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    Not my opinion. The beginning of WP:NAME, that we are edited for lay readers, not for specialists, (and so should be accessible to them) has stood there for a long time; whereas consistency has always been controversial even in those few cases (like WP:NCNT) where I support it and it has generally prevailed. And I remind you that the only proposal to change things has been where neutrality, ambiguity are ties (so is encyclopediacity, if the Britannica 's use of Norway maple (A. platanoides) bears on the matter). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    Note: a Google search for "Norway maple" returns 125,000 hits , but a seach for "Acer platanoides" returns 432,000 hits . It appears that the scientific name is more common than the "common" name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    Artless, Petey; the first search is effectively limited to English, the second isn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    I made no claims. Frankly, it seems you are the one assuming bad faith here. I presented a naked fact along with links to show exactly what I had done, yet in the edit summary to my reply you said "disingenuous". If you feel the search was improper, then please post statistics that you believe are fair. I did not run a restricted search for English-only because Google does not mark the language of every page that is indexed. With English-only "Acer platanoides" is 81,700 and "Norway maple" is 105,000 which has a much smaller margin of difference than a general search, and both numers are reduced. The "Norway maple" search dropped by about 17% with an English-only restriction. I assure you that if we make the change to wording that you propose, we will see this sort of argument over and over. Addressing the issue of Google hits up front could save a lot of trouble. I am well aware of the limitations of Google searches, as I have had to contend with that problem often. Again, I made no claims. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    The WP:PLANTS project has enjoyed two years of not having to have these stupid Ghit-swinging arguments. Hesperian 02:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hesperian's statement above. I could see the benefits of pushing the importance of WP:COMMONNAME above all other considerations on the simple English Misplaced Pages, but not on en.Misplaced Pages. As an aside, perhaps we should find a better example than Norway maple for you to use. I would certainly support moving it to the common name under the currently worded convention as an exception (economically important, culturally important as an invasive species). --Rkitko 00:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I'll take Joshua tree, unless you're going to argue that the minimal tourism conveys economic importance. ;-> Note, however, that we don't use sugar maple either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• On the fundamental issue; I'm not pushing commonality above all other considerations; I'm pushing for it in those cases where it is the only issue of importance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  Then please provide a list of cases where it is the only issue of importance. Frankly, I can't think of any cases where that would be true. There is a reason that sugar maple can't be used. In the state where I first studied botany formally, a "sugar maple" is a species of Populus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, but Populus spp. are poplars, not maples, so "sugar maple" is somewhat of a misnomer. In such cases, a disambiguation on top of the species page (Acer saccharum in that case) can help, and in the other page linking the "odd" name to what taxon it usually pertains to. I resolved the case of Philadelphus and "syringa" that way. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've already listed two others: Norway maple and Joshua tree; yet more have occurred in the discussion of recent moves above.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  Well, "Joshua tree" is the name of a US national park, so right away it's not unambiguous. My copy of Mabberley's The Plant Book notes that the common name is also applied to "Yucca spp.", i.e. to multiple species in the genus Yucca, so the name is ambiguous even when applied just to plants. Do you get the point now? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, Petey; I understand you have the perfect system, and will believe anything that is necessary to defend it, even that Joshua tree needs disambiguation from Joshua Tree National Park, and misunderstand everything said to you, even not used for other species; the Park is not a species. Now let me turn to editors with something constructive to say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    In the edit summary for your reply above, you noted "reply to bad faith". Could you please indicate which part of my reply above was bad faith? Please keep in mind that my link to WP:IDHT followed only because you had explicitly mentioned it in your previous comment's edit summary, and so I assumed it was appropriate to address that concern of yours. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    Is this the beginning of an apology? If it turns into one, I may consider answering the same question twice. If not, why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Alterations to the guideline

The debate in this section to date is largely one of interpretation and not substance. When the discussion has been on specifics, even though this guidline does not advocate it the discussion on whether a common name should be used or a Latin one, the discussion has revolved around whether there is a common name or not. No one as said that it does not matter that there is a common name, and that the name should be the Latin one because Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (flora) says it should.

Would anyone ever state who has contributed to this discussion ever wish to argue that we only use the common name for teak because it is an exception under bullet point 2 of the "Article title?

If I was a closing administrator on a WP:RM which involved a move where one person stated it should be under the name oak because the WP:COMMONNAME and someone else argued that even though they agreed oak was the common name it should be under Quercus because Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (flora) states that "Scientific names, not common names, are to be used as page titles in all cases" I would say see Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." Therefore go with the Naming Conventions policy and the common name.

The first section of the naming convention policy Misplaced Pages:Naming Conventions#Use the most easily recognized name is one of the oldest and most stable policies on Misplaced Pages it was formulated by user:mav on the 6 May 2002 and as such it predatest two of the three core content policies -- Misplaced Pages:Verifiability ( 2 August 2003 ) Misplaced Pages:No original research (21 December 2003 ) only Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view existed at the time.

Those of you who are arguing against changing this guideline to follow this basic Misplaced Pages policy need to reconsider your position. If you do not bring this guideline into line with the policy it will be of little use in determining the name of any flora article. However if the two paragraphs are introduced from "General guidelines (first paragraph)" and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Common names from the guideline Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (astronomical objects), and the rest of the article is reworded around that, then in practical terms you will loose little as in the vast majority of flora names, as with astronomical objects, there is no common name other than that used in science. -- PBS (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If the two paragraphs I am suggestion including are too detailed then why not go with wording like the other in the tree of life project: The Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (fauna) "If there is a common name in English, use that (following Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names) and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English))." and alter the rest to fit around that. --PBS (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian further up this page when I suggested incorporating these paragraph you said you would object. When I asked "What specifically is it that you object to in those two sections" you did not reply. Do you still have objections if so what are they? --PBS (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Curtis Clark do you still see little point in this change, and do you object it it is made? -- PBS (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

EncycloPetey do you still consider this to be a policy page and would you object to the incorporation of the two paragraphs? -- PBS (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hardyplants would you object to these paragraphs being incorporated into this guideline and the rest of the guideline reworked so that it is in harmony with the Naming Conventions policy? -- PBS (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we need to change Misplaced Pages:Naming Conventions#Use the most easily recognized name in regards to plant naming. Because if past history is any indication this will produce havack and ill will in more than a few articles. I left wikipedia shortly after coming here, and stayed away for year because of this issue, there was much turmoil over when pages should use British common names or American ones. Hardyplants (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue of National names and spelling is usually resolved around last stable version and/or what did the original author use? Again that difference can also be addressed in this guideline along the lines of "If there is a conflict over a name due to different national names for the same thing, the consider using the scientific name". But if this guideline is not bought in line with the Naming Conventions policy there will be conflict over the names of articles because people will look for policies and guidelines that support their position. This will be a far more influential and useful guideline if it works within an not outside the requisites of the Naming Conventions policy. --PBS (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently by "there will be conflict over the names of articles", you mean "I will create conflict over the names of articles". For in all the time this convention has been in place, the only conflict has been this shitstorm created by Philip Baird Shearer. Hesperian 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you still have objections if so what are they? Yes I still have objections. The text that you propose to insert would materially alter our long-established and very widely supported convention. As plants editors we have the luxury of short-circuiting these pointless bullshit dick-swinging arguments over which orthographic variant of what common name gets the most google hits whilst avoiding any nationalistic bias et cetera ad infinitum. We can do so simply by adopting the standard nomenclature of our field. Your proposal sucks, but you won't be around to find out just how much; you would foist an unworkable, subjective policy on us, then walk away and leave us indefinitely mired in pointless semantic disputes. Screw that. You can put me down as welded to the current convention. Hesperian 11:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing proposed in this discussion would allow or contenance Anglo-American disputes. I suggested, and would support, language which would make clear that if there are two common names for a species, including a British and an American one, we then must use the Latin name.

There is a simple solution to the semantic disputes, which would clarify those cases in which most of you agree that common names would need to be considered. I hope we can reach a compromise in that direction; if we do, I will still be around, and even join WP Plants. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If people are still interested in discussion, do let me know; but the alternative to a discussion tag is the admission that this page does not represent the consensus of Misplaced Pages; this reversion is a misstatement of fact. There is a policy against ownership of pages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that two people not involved in a project have decided to insert their fingers and make a mess does not indicate a lack of consensus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Three, but who's counting? The real problem is that WP:COMMONNAME really is project-wide consensus, regularly tested. The claim that "absence of involvement" matters is common to all WP:OWN violations; all de facto committees are open to the judgment of the rest of Misplaced Pages - that's what being collaborative means. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken (again). The term collaboration means "working together with others to achieve a common goal", not "committees are open to the judgment of the rest". What is happening here is that you have stepped in to tell others how to play, while not deigning to actually play with them. Collaboration requires that people be working together on something, which is what WP:PLANTS has been doing all along. We have regular discussions of policies and practices among participants. That is collaboration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't have private playpens here - nor have I refused to play; I've offered to stick around. Clearly this project needs attention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

See below. It's more important to make a point than it is to work with productive editors.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

'Nother thing I noted

There are different spelling conventions in AmE and BrE, as regards hyphenization/capitalization. In birds, we have (outside Misplaced Pages) standardized common names for all species, and the BrE spelling was chosen; for plants there are no conventions as of yet and I don't think there are gonna be some anytime soon.

Too much capitalization might better be avoided; it makes the name odd-looking when one follows the "proper names get capitalized" rule. BrE hyphenates instead in any case. What AmE seems to do to get around the caps problem, as per Google, seems to be a change in orthography. For example, "Small-flowered Whatchamacallit-wort" in BrE = "Smallflower Whatchamacallitwort" in AmE to avoid "Small Flower(ed) Whatchamacallit Wort". Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

All ready been dealt with

We have this:

=== Use common names of persons and things ===

Shortcuts

• WP:NCCN
• WP:COMMONNAME

Convention: Except where other accepted Misplaced Pages naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things; use the naming conflict guideline when there is a conflict. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications

Which takes you to this:

===Animals, plants, and other organisms===

See: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tree of life/Article titles
See: Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (fauna)

See: Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (flora)

Which leads to this current page. Hardyplants

Also from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tree of life/Article titles

In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique (e.g. "Cuvier's dwarf caiman"), they should be used for article titles, except for plant articles. Scientific names should be used otherwise.

See Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (flora) for article titles for plant names

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyplants (talk • contribs) 12:32, 3 December 2008

And what does the very first section of the Naming Conventions, "Use the most easily recognized name" take us to? This is issue of a guideline's non compliance of with the core principle of the naming conventions policy has not been dealt with yet. --PBS (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Why will you not see this??

Except where other accepted Misplaced Pages naming conventions give a different indication,

Curtis has made a very reasonable request below. Your argument that this page is against policy does not hold up, so you need to find a better one.Hardyplants (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Smackdown

Weighing AGF (on both sides) against the evidence of the posts here, I'd have to say that the intent is a smackdown of the plant editors.

Had it been a genuine concern, it seems a different approach would have been more productive:

1. Identify specific problems caused by the naming convention (so far we seem to have Norway maple and Joshua tree).
2. Determine whether those problems are caused by the convention or are a result of ignoring it.
   • If the problems are the result of ignoring the convention, seek consensus among the plant editors to change the article names.
   • If the problems are caused by the convention, suggest specific changes to ameliorate the problems.

If any of the editors who have attacked the guidelines would like to pursue this methodology, I'd be happy to engage. Well, no, I wouldn't be happy, but I wouldn't be disgusted, either.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I grant that the conversation opened unfortunately; but I have identified specific problems, and proposed specific solutions; this text being the latest.

I note that this guideline could be read as discouraging English names for higher taxa as well, although this is not what Misplaced Pages does for Oak or Mock-orange. This is also undesirable; guidelines should express practice, not be a handful of editors' attempt to shape it; see WP:CONSENSUS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Smack down? Please. My only comment here so far gave a specific example too. Poison oak, which is currently split into two articles because technically there are two species, neither of which is independently notable, and both of which are most commonly known as Poison Oak. I still don't understand why one article can't cover both, or why each can't be named per their most common name and dabbed per WP:D, say Poison Oak (pacific) and Poison Oak (atlantic). I understand the use of the scientific name for species for which there is no common name, but the use of obscure scientific names to name articles about commonly known plants seems to fly in the face of what Misplaced Pages naming is all about. That's the general issue that needs to be addressed here, not the myriad of specific examples to which it applies (of which Poison Oak is only one). --Born2cycle (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

why one article can't cover both -- Because Toxicodendron diversilobum and T. pubescens excluding other species of Toxicodendron don't correspond to any taxon. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary.

why each can't be named per their most common name and dabbed per WP:D -- Because enerally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Poison Oak (pacific) or Poison oak (pacific) or Poison Oak (Pacific) or Poison oak (Pacific) or Poison oak (West Coast) or Western poison oak or Poison-oak (Pacific) or what? Does it make linking easy? No, obviously. Even without the disambiguator we would have Poison oak, Poison Oak and Poison-oak.

An encyclopedia isn't a treatise on cladistics, either, although it should contain one. The Britannica has an article on Poison ivy, even though that is also two species of Toxicodendron. (Here, btw, the insistence on taxonomic classification has led us into error. We mislead the reader by not acknowledging that T. diversilobum is also called "poison ivy" where it grows; moving the article to T. radicans with a redirect would only make the situation worse.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I doubt a discussion of Toxicodendron classification will enlighten this discussion much, but if I were going to write an article to combine two species, it wouldn't be T. diversilobum and T. pubescens, because the latter has more similarity with, and liklihood of confusion with, T. radicans than T. diversilobum. Perhaps all of the vine-like Toxicodendron (these three, probably T. orientale, perhaps others I'm forgetting about or don't know about) could plausibly be combined into an article, but I don't think I've seen non-wikipedia sources which do that. Kingdon (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We have redirects from common names and bolded common names in the first line anyway, so I am afraid I don't understand your problem. There is no possibility that a reader won't find the artcle or won't understand what he is reading about because of the Latin title. However, common names would make linking much more difficult. Colchicum (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right; you don't understand the problem. If someone enters "poison oak", because he wants to know the meaning of that phrase and he doesn't, he should get to an article which explains that there are two species of that name, how they are related, how they differ, and that one of them is also called poison ivy, although it is not the more commonly known species of that name. We don't have an article which does that, and we should. That is what "writing for lay readers" is all about: specialists don't need us; they have other and better handbooks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. This is an official Misplaced Pages policy. See Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. A disambiguation page is enough here. Of course it can be expanded, but that has nothing to do with botany. Colchicum (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Then poison oak has nothing to do with botany. Even Petey disagrees; as witness his suggestion, far above, of three articles: one for the common name, and one for each species; but this is a detail compared with the point of principle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your ability to mis-interpret the words of others is astounding. I did not disagree with anything Colchicum just said. I indicated that a separate poison oak article is possible given certain conditions which have not yet been demonstrated. In the absence of meeting those conditions, then a disambiguation page is all that is required. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

How flexible EP's position is! Last time all he wanted was a strong relationship between the two; I should have thought that two plants of the same genus, with similar appearance and properties, and the same common name, met that test if anything did; now he has more conditions. What are they? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing written below it has caused me to re-evaluate my first sentence in this section.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Present draft

I have attempted to state what most people here, on both sides, seem to agree on. I hope those, at least, who agree that the decision between Joshua tree and Yucca brevifolia should be a question of fact will read the present draft and improve it. (I reserve the right to tweak it myself.)

What draft? You're editing the article. We all know how to make subpages; AGF would be a lot easier if you had done that. If a project is not a private playpen, neither is an article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The chief tweak I would consider is acknowledging that what we have been discussing is chiefly about species. Common names for genera (Maple, rather than Acer, for example) are more widely used. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as I trust the draft makes clear, with most of the reasons stated above to prefer scientific to English names; more than that, I assert they are already included in the general naming conventions, and, when they apply, we should use scientific name.

If we can settle on something of this sort, I would remove the dispute tag; at which point, we can edit very much as we did before - merely some extreme claims avoided. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I reserve the right to tweak it myself". This is claiming ownership of the page. That clearly is a violation of WP:OWN. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Really, Petey; disclaiming being entirely done with a passage does not deny the right of others to revise it. I'm done for now, unless this discussion brings up some other improvement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is something I could agree with: A common name can be used as the title of the article about a plant taxon iff:

(1) it strictly corresponds to the given taxon and is not ambigous or wider/narrower in sense, and

(2) across the English-sepaking world the taxon has no other prominent common names that are not merely orthographical variants, and

(3) the common name occurs alone without the scientific name in a considerable number of reliable secondary sources, referring to the taxon in question rather than to some goods made of the plants, such as timber, food, medicines etc.

But poison oak will certainly fail the test, because poison oak is not a taxon. Colchicum (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The present text, being, I hope, what we can agree on, says nothing about common names which cross taxa; add what you think consensus, and we'll see if Born2cycle can stand it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, boiled down to a single sentence. This is, I believe, the only possible change, as opposed to a clarification and rephrasing, of existing practice; the rest is intended to guard against dogmatism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is okay by me, generally.
But I think there needs to be some clarity around preciseness of circumscription. "Grass" corresponds approximately with "Poaceae", but whereas "Poaceae" is precisely circumscribed, people may have different views about what is and what isn't a grass; they may argue, for example, that the bamboos are not grasses. For this reason, an article about the Poaceae really must be entitled Poaceae. Yet "grass" meets the first and third condition for being a common name title, and the reason why it fails to meet the second (is unambiguous as the name of a plant) may be too subtle for some to grasp without a little guidance.
Also I would be inclined to recommend the use of common names for groups of plants that are no longer recognised as valid taxa; e.g. "Dicotyledon" not "Magnoliopsida". Hesperian 22:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would think the last phrase: as meaning the entire taxon would cover cases like Poaceae, but please do clarify, if you see a way to do so. Note that again we do have an article Grass also, about the common meaning. I agree about non-taxa; how about common names, where they exist, are recommended for groups which are not taxa? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done a draft, which could use improvement. One reason for weaselwording is that there is a Magnoliopsida, and until there is consensus to merge, it;s not the best example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, bad example. There have been multiple circumscriptions of Magnoliopsida, not all of which correspond to the dicots. A merge would not be appropriate. Hesperian 23:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, there is a difficult balancing act here. It was not my intention to advocate that Bombacaceae should be moved to Bombax family. Hesperian 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea. Then I really must go; do reword. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following all the minutia involved in specific wordings, but at least in broad terms doesn't look so bad. The biggest issue which I don't know how to handle in terms of drafting is the two differing meanings of "common name" - the botanist meaning and the wikipedia meaning. Kingdon (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)