View source for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive73

{{aan|prefix=Archive}}

== Common English name of [[Prunus mume]]? ==

Hey! Sorry to bother you folks with this, but could someone with more proficiency in botany than me take a look at [[Prunus mume#Names]]? The plant (particularly the blossoms, sometimes the tree, sometimes an allusive reference in a toponym) shows up a lot in Japanese poetry going back to at least the eighth century, and I've never seen it translated as "apricot", and almost always as "plum", but both English and Japanese Wikipedia seem to give priority to the name "Japanese apricot". ("Japanese" makes sense, since even though it was imported to Japan from China, it seems to have first been studied by westerners in Japan.) This seems to have been discussed [[Talk:Prunus mume#Common names of Prunus mume|on the article talk page]] in not nearly enough detail ten years ago by [[User:Phoenix7777]] and a user who is no longer active (and seems to have suffered a global block because their username is obscene in certain languages).

The problem is that at some point a dichotomy was established between "Japanese apricot" and "Chinese plum", and there are certain segments of Japanese society (including a lot of editors of Japanese Wikipedia; see [[netto-uyoku]]) that don't like to mention how certain aspects of Japanese culture originated in China, even in materials intended for a foreign audience, and so people have apparently been coming to both Japanese and English Wikipedia to find out what the English common name for ''(m)ume'' is, seeing "Japanese apricot" and "Chinese plum", and going with the former, even though it definitely is not used among translators of Japanese literary works, etc.

I suspect it is a "quasi-scientific name" used only in botanical journals and other works written by and for botanists and other scientists, but is not really the "common" name, but despite searching I've been unable to find any source that explicitly verifies or disproves my suspicion. So I figured I'd come here to ask (a) if anyone with more literacy in the field can do better and (b) failing that, if this (i.e., a plant having both a common English name and a "common name" that is used only by specialists) seems like something that could happen. (If anyone could give me a simple explanation of how it doesn't really matter because plum and apricot are the same thing, if that is the case, that would also be much appreciated!)

[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
:Personally, I would delete the entire section [[Prunus mume#Names|''Prunus mume'' § Names]], since it doesn't seem to be mainly about the names used in English, but about the names in other languages, which isn't appropriate in the English Wikipedia. Mentioning widely used English vernacular names in the lead is enough. As for "Japanese apricot", this is the name used by the Royal Horticultural Society [https://www.rhs.org.uk/plants/25783/Prunus-mume/Details here], so it seems to be well sourced as an English name for the species. If you look at [[Apricot]], it explains that species in ''Prunus'' sect. ''Armeniaca'', which includes ''Prunus mume'', are known as "apricots", so there's a logic to "Japanese apricot". [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 08:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

An additional issue; one of the varietas names is incorrect. I'd guess that var. ''typica'' should be var. ''mume'' (autonym), but it's possible that the type of the species belongs to one of the other varieties. (I've failed to find an online copy of the original description - I tried BHL, Archive.org and Google Books.) [[User:Lavateraguy|Lavateraguy]] ([[User talk:Lavateraguy|talk]]) 11:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
:[https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k97598f/f30.item Gallica] has the complete work - see pp. 29-31. [[User:Lavateraguy|Lavateraguy]] ([[User talk:Lavateraguy|talk]]) 12:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Peter coxhead}} Sorry for the lack of clarity. I am not asking for help addressing a specific problem with the current text of the (English) Wikipedia article on the topic. I am currently involved in a dispute on Japanese Wikipedia with an editor who doesn't appear to speak English but has been citing English Wikipedia and sources such the RHS to make the assertion that the "English name" is "Japanese apricot" and ''not'' "Chinese plum" or "Japanese plum".
:::I have, therefore, seen the source you refer to and a number of other such sources that reliably support the assertion that one of the names is "Japanese apricot" and I'm not disputing the existence of such a name. But that source does not address the question of which is the more common, and rather just aggravates my suspicion that horticultural sources favour "apricot" while other sources favour "plum". It's difficult to explain with online sources, but I've read dozens of books and articles on Japanese history, poetry, etc. in English, and they uniformly translate ''ume'' (being the modern Japanese pronunciation of ''mume'') as "plum" (here are three[https://www.google.co.jp/books/edition/Emperor_of_Japan/VMuPzoc23QMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Donald+Keene%22+%22ume%22+%22plum%22&pg=PA679&printsec=frontcover][https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=n4pRAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Donald+Keene%22+%22ume%22+%22plum%22&dq=%22Donald+Keene%22+%22ume%22+%22plum%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&printsec=frontcover&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1xb_H95vwAhVAyIsBHTn3Bi8Q6AEwAXoECAIQAg][https://www.google.co.jp/books/edition/Sources_of_Japanese_Tradition/ua6rAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Donald+Keene%22+%22ume%22+%22plum%22&pg=PA358&printsec=frontcover]). There's also the fact that on a Google News search (Google Books is failing me[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ume%22+%22plum%22&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALeKk01ogTErUHIBdSo6m5di9pLG-MGB4A:1619440494534&ei=brOGYLWUIJKymAXLgKioCA&start=440&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwi1g6X79ZvwAhUSGaYKHUsACoU4rgMQ8tMDCI4B&biw=1920&bih=1099&dpr=1][https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ume%22+%22apricot%22&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALeKk02FxYlM-Wiqwm1yjYjLDMU7i9WUPA:1619440051436&ei=s7GGYOKHGrKQr7wP9eGN8AM&start=440&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwiirYCo9JvwAhUyyIsBHfVwAz44wgMQ8tMDCEM&biw=1920&bih=1099&dpr=1][https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mume%22+%22apricot%22&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALeKk03zj5ZSLh2zkUp8QmszN81OK7IBgg:1619440615613&ei=57OGYMn_JInW0gTr6YLQBA&start=440&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwiJj4O19pvwAhUJq5QKHeu0AEo4rgMQ8tMDCIwB&biw=1920&bih=1099&dpr=1][https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mume%22+%22plum%22&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALeKk03GgCuPC4Zekyd2YgHg8rOi4VflCQ:1619440553142&ei=qbOGYPihCM6mmAXPnrSwCg&start=420&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwi4mp6X9pvwAhVOE6YKHU8PDaY4rgMQ8tMDCEM&biw=1920&bih=1099&dpr=1]) [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ume%22+%22plum%22&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk02pgImQPFx57ESADvWHLebYelu6rw:1619439787517&ei=q7CGYJ6GH82moASdpInoCg&start=280&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwjeh5Sq85vwAhVNE4gKHR1SAq04jgIQ8tMDCJoB&biw=1920&bih=1099&dpr=1 "ume" "plum"] gets 284 hits vs. 120 for [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ume%22+%22apricot%22&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk02lIs7p66h9MC-vQ33bZo42FRfCFQ:1619439798651&ei=trCGYPqcJ8GsoATKiYiADQ&start=110&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwj6z7uv85vwAhVBFogKHcoEAtA4WhDy0wMImgE&biw=1920&bih=1099&dpr=1 "ume" "apricot"], while if one replaces "ume" with "mume" the results are switched with [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mume%22+%22apricot%22&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk006eFjMdAOpP8r8Lpw77h0KEISyJA:1619440198015&ei=RrKGYPQyzJOvvA_I-bGoAQ&start=80&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwj07fLt9JvwAhXMyYsBHch8DBUQ8tMDCJQB&biw=1920&bih=1099&dpr=1 89 for "apricot"] and [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mume%22+%22plum%22&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk00H10XZNzFY4Z8Rw0-ZWxiHmW2RoQ:1619440211022&ei=U7KGYP5Tro2vvA_8wKzoBg&start=70&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwi-yYz09JvwAhWuxosBHXwgC20Q8tMDCJIB&biw=1920&bih=1099&dpr=1 76 for "plum"]. (I guess popular news sources that cite the common Japanese name would be more likely to use "plum" while those that cite the scientific name in English would be more likely to use "apricot", but the absolute majority -- 360 vs. 209 -- use "plum".) I'm going to be fine IRL, since the vast majority of my friends and colleagues are familiar with the same sources I am and all know that ''ume'' in English is "plum", and in three years I've only once had a client who asserted that they wanted to use "apricot" before eventually accepting that "plum" was the better translation because [https://sankan.kunaicho.go.jp/english/guide/small/d13-01ph-22.html a certain Japanese government agency] used it. But I was hoping that some editors here would be able to shine some light on the issue.
:::{{ping|Lavateraguy}} While it doesn't address my concern (a source written in Latin/French almost couldn't by definition), that is indeed a very interesting source. The second paragraph on page 31 is particularly interesting, and I will say that every book and article I've read on Japanese history, poetry, or religion that refers to this matter calls the tree/flower "plum" rather than "apricot".
:::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 13:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
::::[https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-spark-so-many-recipes-need-umeboshi-11578509924 This source] and [https://www.winemag.com/2019/12/24/plum-wine-spirit-guide/ this one] are about as close as I've gotten. [https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/wakayama-japan-foods/index.html This one] confusingly says {{tq|ume's scientific name is actually prunus mume, a type of apricot}}, implying that the scientific name is itself a type of apricot? If indeed it is just a matter of the relative genetic closeness between the ''ume'' and the plants traditionally called "apricot" and "plum" in Europe, that would make "apricot" a "quasi-scientific name" as I said above, used by scientists who want to avoid a common name that is seen as scientifically inaccurate, but not by the general public unless they are consciously mimicking scientists (or Wikipedia)... [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 13:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Hijiri88}} in what you've written above, you seem to be making at least two assumptions that I think aren't correct. Firstly, that there is or should be a 1:1 translation of the vernacular names of organisms between different languages. There's absolutely no reason why this should be the case; indeed it's well known that it isn't and shouldn't be. A distinction that can be made in English between "plums" and "apricots" may or may not correspond to the same  distinction or indeed any distinction made in Japanese. Secondly, that there will be a vernacular name for ''Prunus mume'' that doesn't originate in botany or horticulture, so is somehow more "real" rather than "quasi-scientific". Since ''Prunus mume'' isn't a native species in any English-speaking country, how could it have an English name other than one given to it by those who introduced it or wrote about it, i.e. botanists and horticulturalists? We only know that either English name, "Japanese plum" or "Japanese apricot", refers to ''Prunus mume'' if the binomial is also used in the source. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 15:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
::::::I doubt very much that there was a word for apricot in Japanese until recently. So either the Japanese called it "plum", and if there was more than one kind of plum (which I don't think there was), then "Chinese plum". The Japanese would have known about the plum, the peach, and everything else would be a cherry. <span style="font-family: Cambria;">[[User:Abductive|<span style="color: teal;">'''Abductive'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 16:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::::As far as I can tell the Japanese had ''Prunus mume'', ''Prunus salicina'' and ''Prunus japonica'' (and possibly other Asian plums, almonds and peaches).
:::::::FWIW, Bean uses Japanese apricot for ''Prunus mume'' [[User:Lavateraguy|Lavateraguy]] ([[User talk:Lavateraguy|talk]]) 18:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Argumentum ad google: if you believe the numbers returned by Google searches Japanese plum is used for ''Prunus salicina'' more often than for ''Prunus mume'', by a factor of two, in spite of there being 2.5 times as many references to the latter than to the former on the web. Japanese apricot is used for ''Prunus mume'' about 5 times as often as Japanese plum. [[User:Lavateraguy|Lavateraguy]] ([[User talk:Lavateraguy|talk]]) 18:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
::::::::''Prunus salicina'' is sour plum in Japanese, and ''Prunus japonica'' is a cherry (zakura). <span style="font-family: Cambria;">[[User:Abductive|<span style="color: teal;">'''Abductive'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 19:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Peter: Well, I would dispute that "botanists and horticulturalists" are the ones who wrote about plum and cherry trees in Japan for a lay audience. Yes, they no doubt wrote in more detail on the biology of the plants than the various literary scholars, etc., but if there writings were widely read by those outside their field prior to the Wikipedia age, one would imagine that a significant number of professionally produced translations of Japanese literary works, histories of Japanese painting, works on bonsai, or other such works would translate ''ume'' as "apricot", and this just doesn't seem to be the case.
:::::::::Abductive: The Japanese for "apricot" is ''anzu'', which the ''Nihon Kokugo Daijiten'' says was used in a Japanese text (a formal diary written in classical Chinese) as early as 1488 and a Japanese-language poetry anthology in 1633.[https://kotobank.jp/word/%E6%9D%8F%E5%AD%90%E3%83%BB%E6%9D%8F-200522]
::::::::::You're correct, now that you mention it, "anzu" is a word I've heard before. <span style="font-family: Cambria;">[[User:Abductive|<span style="color: teal;">'''Abductive'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 08:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Lavateraguy: I'm '''not''' relying on Google hits. I've read dozens of paper books that uniformly refer to ''ume'' in English as "plum", never as apricot. I never heard of referring to it as "apricot" until I saw it on Wikipedia and did a Google search and found other sources, some (though perhaps a minority of those written by non-botanists) pre-Wikipedia that do the same, and I came here to ask if anyone can provide an explanation. I explained all this above, so if you would kindly retract your bizarre accusation and apologize for not reading my comment before responding, that would be appreciated.
:::::::::All: Okay, it seems I am not going to get an answer. I've stated in each of my posts here that I am aware of "Japanese apricot" being ''one of'' the common names and not being an invention of Wikipedia, but you keep throwing citations at me that verify that it exists but do not answer my question as to why this discrepancy exists and why one of the "common" names only seems to be used by botanists and horticulturalists. I would like to apologize for wasting all of your time.
:::::::::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::I think that you know the answers already. What you are trying to figure out requires knowledge of modern and classical Japanese and scientific and vernacular English, which you seem to have. All you need do is chart your findings and trust that you are correct. <span style="font-family: Cambria;">[[User:Abductive|<span style="color: teal;">'''Abductive'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 08:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yeah, but [[WP:CITINGWIKIPEDIA|I'm not a reliable source]]. I mentioned briefly that the reason I came here is because of a dispute on Japanese Wikipedia, where the existence of English-language reliable sources (and sources written by botanists and horticulturalists are being treated as inherently more reliable than the writings of [[Donald Keene]], even though he's a household name in Japan) that say "Japanese apricot" is being used as a justification for removing any references to "plum" from the lead (with the ultimate end, though perhaps not the goal, being that my translation clients will continue to believe that the English common name not plum, but apricot). It's almost certainly a user conduct issue at this point, but I find it super-difficult to navigate my way around ''English'' Wikipedia's procedures for dealing with disruptive editors even having been here for more than a decade... meh, I've got someone now who's apparently willing to listen, anyway. (Not sure if they're an admin, though.) [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 10:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Huh. It's just come to my attention (after having given up...) that one of the books I have in one of my desk drawers, [[Helen Craig McCullough|McCullough]]'s translation of the ''[[Kokinshū]]'', translates ''sumomo'' (apparently the Japanese for [[Prunus salicina]]) as "[[damson]]" on the same page as it translates ''ume'' as "plum".[https://www.google.co.jp/books/edition/Kokin_Wakash%C3%85/h8PjRkVxrrgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22waka%22+%22sumomo%22+%22plum%22&pg=PA103&printsec=frontcover] McCullough was not, as far as I am aware, a botanist or horticulturalist, but she was one of the premier scholars of Japanese literature in her day. Would it be reasonable to say that since these plants are so closely related they are all referred to by various such names in various sources? [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 04:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::I think that the one thing you are missing is the culinary aspect of these names. To me, the important thing about these various species is how they taste in [[plum sauce]] and as pickled or dried fruit, which is more apricot-like or peach-like than plum-like. Prunes vs plums vs sauces. Perhaps in Japanese culture the culinary uses are taken into account when deciding what a fruit's identity is? <span style="font-family: Cambria;">[[User:Abductive|<span style="color: teal;">'''Abductive'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 08:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yeah, I'm pretty sure most English-speakers think the same way about "plum", "apricot" and "peach" (the latter being ''[[Momotaro|momo]]'' in Japanese, which I suspect is etymologically related to the aforementioned ''sumomo''), but I don't think I even knew the word "damson" before today. That being said, I would think the [[umeboshi]], or pickled ''plums'', are likely the best-known use of ''ume'' among the general populace of most English-speaking countries, and I don't think people are lining up to start calling them pickled apricots. In Japan (at least in my circles), while plums are widely enjoyed as a food, plum ''blossom'' viewing is an annual ritual that is not as widely practiced as cherry blossom viewing, but still known of on what I think is a near-universal level: a Google Image search for simple ''ume'' without a modifier for "tree", "fruit" or "blossom" brings up, on the first page on my screen, one image of fresh fruit, two of pickled fruit, and 23 of blossoms, as compared to a search for ''anzu'' where 21 of the images were of fruit, six of blossoms, and one of a character from Pokemon. An image search for any of these words in English brings up almost no pictures of flowers on the first page, only fruit, which is an interesting difference. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 10:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::Common names are determined by usage and not by technical correctness. If a 19th-century botanist went to Japan and found a tree unknown in Europe and brought a specimen back to the UK, if that tree then became commonly known as the "bongo-bongo tree", regardless of what it was called in Japan, then that would be its common name in the UK. There is no reason why anyone would have asked the Japanese what they called it and then tried to make the most accurate translation for English usage. [[User:PaleCloudedWhite|PaleCloudedWhite]] ([[User talk:PaleCloudedWhite|talk]]) 10:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{ec}} By that logic, though, the most common name is almost certainly just "plum", not "Japanese apricot", "Chinese plum", "Japanese plum", "Chinese apricot", "mume apricot", or any other possible variation. The trouble appears to be that Wikipedia (Japanese more than English, but still kinda English -- someone definitely needs to fix our [[Prunus salicina]] article... and why Japanese Wikipedia would be including the English common names for Japanese plants at all is baffling) is trying to use specific common names that clarify the distinction between different species even when common usage does not make this distinction. As my {{tq|''"Japanese apricot", "Chinese plum", "Japanese plum", "Chinese apricot", "mume apricot"''}} example demonstrates, listing all the possible "common" names (common meaning non-technical as opposed to non-rare, since needless to say most of these are exceedingly rare) would be very cumbersome and probably pointless. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 10:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Plants can have more than one common name. If they do, Wikipedia should list them - but they ''all need to be reliably sourced''. And I agree that the Japanese Wikipedia shouldn't be concerning itself with the English common names. [[User:PaleCloudedWhite|PaleCloudedWhite]] ([[User talk:PaleCloudedWhite|talk]]) 10:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: Yes trying to get scientific with common names is a fruitless task. My take is that plum is a more general term, while apricot is used more narrowly for yellow-orange fruit or plums in the section ''Armeniaca'', or even more specifically for the common apricot, which is sometimes called an Armenian apple. The Japanese or Chinese plum might have been referred to as an apricot because of the flesh colour or its classification (section). —&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;">&nbsp;[[User:Jts1882|Jts1882]]&nbsp;&#124;[[User talk:Jts1882|&nbsp;talk]]&nbsp;</span> 10:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
{{outdent}} But a key point is that a reliable source must connect the scientific name ''Prunus mume'' with an English name for it to be a <em>reliable source for the English name of the species</em>; it's not enough to connect a Japanese vernacular name to an English vernacular name, given the vagueness of most vernacular names for plants. A Google search (for what it's worth) for "Prunus mume" AND "Japanese apricot" gets me ~70k hits, as opposed to "Prunus mume" AND "Japanese plum", which gets ~20k hits. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 11:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} Needless to say, given the ubiquity of the ''Prunus mume'' in Japanese culture (see the source linked by Lavateraguy above), only a tiny, tiny minority of reliable sources directly state the scientific name, but I did manage to find in my collection a photograph I took at coordinates 34.49735, 135.82259 in one of the many [[Manyoshu|Manyo botanical gardens]] dotting the Japanese landscape; the photo is of a plate giving information on the particular tree being labelled, which gives the scientific name as "Prunus mume" and identifies it as the same species mentioned in ''Manyoshu'' poem 822, which you can see translated [https://www.japanjournal.jp/diplomacy/pt20190603172034.html here] (I have a paper copy of a different edition of the same translation): {{tq|In my garden fall the plum-blossoms}}; [[Ian Hideo Levy]] [https://www.amazon.co.jp/%E8%8B%B1%E8%AA%9E%E3%81%A7%E3%82%88%E3%82%80%E4%B8%87%E8%91%89%E9%9B%86-%E5%B2%A9%E6%B3%A2%E6%96%B0%E6%9B%B8-%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC%E3%83%93-%E8%8B%B1%E9%9B%84/dp/4004309204 has translated] it as {{tq|Plum blossoms fall / and scatter in my garden}} (read it online [https://www.google.co.jp/books/edition/Sprachlich_literarische_Aggregatzust%C3%A4nd/79IfEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22plum+blossoms+fall%22+%22and+scatter+in+my+garden%22&pg=PA282&printsec=frontcover here]). If that seems a bit too [[WP:SYNTH]]-y, or you don't trust that whoever put up the sign (I suspect the government of either Asuka Village or Nara Prefecture) knew what they were talking about, [https://www.google.co.jp/books/edition/Hakata/WSb0OxBYxOIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22prunus+mume%22+%22dazaifu%22+%22plum%22&pg=PA33&printsec=frontcover here's a Brill-published source] that explicitly says {{tq|The plum (or, strictly speaking, ''prunus mume'', '''sometimes translated as 'Japanese apricot{{'}}''') was a favourite image in his poetry}} (emphasis mine). There's also [https://www.google.co.jp/books/edition/Basho_s_Haiku/V0LQ0DSJ2tcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=basho%27s+haiku+selected+poems+of+matsuo+basho&printsec=frontcover this] -- I highlighted 246 since that is a very famous poem included as #35 in the ''[[Ogura Hyakunin Isshu]]'' and, as such, has been published in English translation well over a dozen times.[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22translated+no+less+than+a+dozen+times+into+English%22&biw=1280&bih=610&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALeKk02-_AhdtJBu7WDznbG9Lu2OwfkTfg%3A1619536224141&ei=YCmIYOWVCMOh-QbhgInQCQ&oq=%22translated+no+less+than+a+dozen+times+into+English%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3740.9580.0.9894.14.9.0.0.0.0.176.737.0j5.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..10.0.0....0.8SN1Oh6fsiA] I have on hand MacMillan's 2008 translation, praised by the eminent scholar [[Donald Keene]] as the best to date, and MacMillan translates it as "plum" in both the main text and the notes, without even mentioning the alternative "apricot" translation: it would not at all surprise me if every single ''Hyakunin Isshu'' translation to date did similar. I have misplaced my copy of the much older Porter translation, but GBooks is helpful.[https://www.google.co.jp/books/edition/A_HUNDRED_VERSES_FROM_OLD_JAPAN/DZkYGKNwj-4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22the+poet+broke+off+a+spray+of+blossoms+from+a+plum+tree%22&pg=PA78&printsec=frontcover] Interestingly, Porter does not mention any specific species in his translation of the poem itself but rather in a note, because the Japanese doesn't and it's only because of historical notes that we know Tsurayuki was talking about a ''mume'' (by Tsurayuki's time, ''hana'', without any modifier, had come to mean cherry blossoms rather than plum blossoms as the word had typically denoted a century or two earlier); so these translators are apparently not being duped by a misleading source text using a common name in colloquial Japanese, but rather doing background research on what kind of blossom was being discussed. (Addendum: So, Dickins's 1866 translation says "flower" and doesn't seem to include a note of any kind.[https://www.google.co.jp/books/edition/Hyak_Nin_Is_shiu_bor_Stanzas_by_a_Centur/11YOAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Dickins%22+%22Tsurayuki%22&pg=PA20&printsec=frontcover])
::::Yes, it's theoretically possible that every single one of these sources are talking about different species of Prunus, and they only refer to it as ''Prunus mume'' because (i) the name ''Prunus mume'' is etymologically derived from the Japanese common name that is also used in the source text of all of these translations and (ii) they are not botanists or horticulturalists. It's even theoretically possible that the Japanese common name ''mume'' doesn't just refer to ''Prunus mume'' but to other varieties of trees that were common in ancient and medieval Japan, and that all of those ancient poets were actually writing about (a?) different species, and that the modern sources referring to the trees as ''Prunus mume'' are all engaged in mistaken guess-work, but in the face of all of that it just seems a lot easier to assume that ''Prunus mume'' just has two common names in English.
::::Anyway, as long as virtually every source not written by a botanist or horticulturalist either (a) refers to the plant exclusively as "plum" or (b) recognizes the existence of the alternative name "apricot" but still prioritizes "plum", then I think it's safe to say that "Japanese apricot" is only a "common name" in the sense of not being the scientific name but is the rarer of the 2+ common names.
::::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 16:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
:George Usher, 1974, ''A Dictionary of Plants Used By Man'', Constable, London (poor title these days, surprisingly comprehensive), has "Japanese apricot: ''[[Prunus mume|Armeniaca mume]]''" (again showing the books age), "Japanese plum: ''[[Eriobotrya japonica]]'' or ''[[Prunus salicina]]'', "Chinese plum: ''Prunus salicina''". What's the point?: the name "Japanese apricot" for ''Prunus mume'' has a reasonable history in English, whereas the other names not so much. ''P. mume'' is in the section Armeniaca, along with apricots, ''P. salicina'' in the Prunus section, along with plums. The Japanese wiki-editor mentioned early on does not seem to be incorrect. Oh, yes {{user|Hijiri88}}, ''[[caca]]'' may be slightly rude in several languages, it is also a nickname used in Latin America and a Roman god, in other words it is a homophone, one spelling, multiple meanings. Certainly acceptable for an editors name, {{user|Caca7}} made a statement on their userpage that they were inactive, and has never had a block that I can tell. [[User:Brunswicknic|Brunswicknic]] ([[User talk:Brunswicknic|talk]]) 14:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
::{{tq|''the name "Japanese apricot" for ''Prunus mume'' has a reasonable history in English, whereas the other names not so much''}} Really? I mean ... while you were writing the above I was writing another comment that cited one source from 1909 and another from 2008 that both use "plum": can you find a translation of the poem in question or any accompanying note that uses "apricot"? Or a reliable source that explicitly says "apricot" is more established than "plum"? Again, I would ''love'' if someone could locate a source that does support this assertion, but...
::Again, I'm not saying "Japanese apricot" doesn't exist as a "common" (i.e., non-scientific) name for ''Prunus mume'', but I haven't seen any evidence that it's more common than "plum".
::(As for the Caca7 thing, you link their contribs page, but when I look at that page it is headed by a big pink box that reads {{tq|''This account is globally locked. See global account details for more information.''}})
::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 16:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
:::Yes, I see, the user has been blocked by the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedias, it is is still a valid name in all the other wikipedias that the user has worked on. They do not have a global block over all wikipedias, including English, and as far as I can tell the sole reason for block on those two is that someone doesn't like the username. I am amazed that as there are articles for various Caca's who are footballers, as well as for a Roman god, that these two wikis find the name inappropriate.[[User:Brunswicknic|Brunswicknic]] ([[User talk:Brunswicknic|talk]]) 11:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|Hijiri88}}, why do you rule out reliable sources because of the occupation of the people wrote them ("as long as virtually every source ''not written by a botanist or horticulturalist''...")? [[User:PaleCloudedWhite|PaleCloudedWhite]] ([[User talk:PaleCloudedWhite|talk]]) 16:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
::::I'm not "ruling out" any reliable sources for any reason (I'm not arguing for the removal of information from any article or the like). I am saying that a "common name" used only by those working in a particular field is not a "common" name as that phrase is likely to be understood (i.e., it is a non-scientific name, but it is not ''the'' name that is in common use among the general public, at best being ''one of'' several such common names). Wikipedia articles on plants should list the common (i.e., non-scientific) names that are most commonly used, and only leave out the less common ones if there are so many that it becomes unwieldy, which I don't even believe to be the case for this particular species. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 16:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
::::{{ping|PaleCloudedWhite}} Wait... I thought your earlier two comments were a little weird, but in combination with this one, it really seems like you are arguing that "apricot" is the common name that is used by the general public and "plum" is only used by Japanologists, or something. That ''might'' be the case, but everything I've seen so far indicates quite the opposite. Could you clarify where you stand on this? [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 16:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::I have not made any assertions about who might use which term. I do not think it is productive to try and do so. The common names of many garden plants - particularly non-native ones - are only common in the sense of being non-scientific; in my experience (I have been a professional gardener for 30 years), much of the "general public" can identify barely half a dozen plants. [[User:PaleCloudedWhite|PaleCloudedWhite]] ([[User talk:PaleCloudedWhite|talk]]) 16:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::Well, you may be right insofar as distinguishing the ''Prunus mume'' plum from various other species called "plum" in English and "ume" in Japanese is not something most people could do at a glance, but who knows what varies according to cultural context. I would hazard a guess that every educated adult who lives in Kyoto knows that the plum blossoms of Kitano Tenjin bloom before the cherry blossoms of Hirano, Arashiyama or Maruyama, and they all call the former "plum". Admittedly, Japanese Wikipedia's insistence that the English common name is "Japanese apricot, not Chinese plum" (apparently motivated more by nationalistic bigotry than any sincere botanical interest) may have altered the way casual English learners in Japan think the blossoms/fruit are referred to in English, but this is definitely not the case with the readership of ''The Japan Times'' or other members of the English-speaking ex-pat community in Japan. This can actually be checked quite easily, since the current imperial era name, [[Reiwa]], derives from a passage in the Manyoshu adjacent and related to the aforementioned 822, and while popular media sources differed on matters like whether the Manyoshu is Japan's oldest poetry anthology (it's not) or whether the passage itself is a poem (it's not), among the sources that named the flower being viewed, I would guess that no more than 10% gave them a name other than "plum". [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 00:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::BTW, I'm getting a strong sense from a number of comments that I am giving off the impression of "looking down on" people with a background in botany or horticulture (as in, by citing works outside of these fields, I appear to be saying "Why don't these plebeian gardeners study the poetry of Tabito and Tsurayuki?"). This is most certainly not the case. I do not want to out myself by giving away too many details, but my family has a long history of gardening, and a reputation as such, to the point that when my 4th grade teacher (a friend of my grandmother's who also knew my father and uncles) first met me and saw my name, she said "Ah, one of the gardeners!" I actually brought the present issue up with my father some time ago, and his response was a combination of PaleCloudedWhite {{tq|Common names are determined by usage and not by technical correctness ... Plants can have more than one common name.}} and Jts1882's {{tq|trying to get scientific with common names is a fruitless task}}; his guess as to the reason for the discrepancy was a version of what I wrote up above and asked for opinions on ({{tq|it doesn't really matter because plum and apricot are the same thing}} -- i.e., "plum" and "apricot" are both non-scientific names that almost always refer to edible fruit rather than the trees themselves anyway, and are each somewhat haphazardly applied to a variety of different species and sometimes, as in the case of ''Prunus mume'', both applied to the same species). [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 01:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

== C. gummifera ==

Hi all,

My submission, [[Carlina gummifera]], was recently accepted from AfC. I am not a botanist, so I had some difficulties in writing a formal botanical terminology in describing the plant (and its flowers). Could one of you help me out here? Also feel free to edit other parts of the article of course.

Sincerely, [[User:RWalen|RWalen]] ([[User talk:RWalen|talk]]) 15:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
:Hello {{U|RWalen}}, thank you for a nice article. However looking at the various databases I see that the current accepted name is [[Chamaeleon gummifer]]. I have made the limited changes to your article to reflect this, and created the genus [[Chamaeleon (plant)]] page and category as well. Please feel free to expand the genus page and add lots more species. I do suggest though that you check the currently accepted name when starting an article, but please we would love you to create more articles. Wikidata is not very good for this, I prefer Plants of the World Online, but there are others of course. Hope you and yours are well, thank you again for your work. [[User:Brunswicknic|Brunswicknic]] ([[User talk:Brunswicknic|talk]]) 11:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
:: Hello {{reply to|Brunswicknic}}, you appear to be right about the name, my apologies. This plant has been moved around a lot in terms of naming.. I will definitely try to look around for more members of this genus, thank you! If you have any other improvements to the article please make them! Kind regards, [[User:RWalen|RWalen]] ([[User talk:RWalen|talk]]) 14:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
::: Getting an article created is the biggest step. The most up-to-date name can easily be changed. There are lots of editors who look at different aspects and help correct details. It's the sense of collaboration that makes Wikipedia fun. —&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;">&nbsp;[[User:Jts1882|Jts1882]]&nbsp;&#124;[[User talk:Jts1882|&nbsp;talk]]&nbsp;</span> 14:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

== Proposed merge of [[Palm shell]] into [[Borassus flabellifer#Fruit]] ==

FYI this is what has been posted so far: [[User:Brunswicknic|Brunswicknic]] ([[User talk:Brunswicknic|talk]]) 10:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

No need for separate article - any new content and useful references should be added to the existing section. Note that there seems to be overlap between [[Borassus]] (to which the redirect [[Palmyra palm]] currently targets) and [[Borassus flabellifer]]. Some cleanup is needed, perhaps. [[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 09:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Recently (few months ago) there was a long and warm discussion of changing the name of [[Vaccinium vitis-idaea]] to Lingonberry. In that discussion, quite a few [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants]] people argued that it seems better to keep food and plants separate. A food has certain characteristics, plants have others, and keeping them separate seems to work better. Bluntly, food is predom. culture, plants have science mainly (personally it is also the culture of plants that interest me, but I am from the social sciences). I don't think the proposal will have much support from WP Plants people. Speaking personally, I would prefer that [[Palm shell]] and [[Borassus flabellifer#Fruit]] are separate, but linked. I will post this proposal at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants]] for people to see. [[User:Brunswicknic|Brunswicknic]] ([[User talk:Brunswicknic|talk]]) 10:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
:It depends on the importance of the fruit, I think, and hence whether there is enough material to make an article, but where there is, I support the two-article approach for all the reasons discussed previously. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 15:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

== ''Goeppertia'' Nees vs ''Goeppertia'' Nees ==

What is the story on ''Goeppertia'' Nees? PoWO has a listing for [http://plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:30215678-2 an 1831] version (accepted, with 243 species), and [http://plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:21417-1 an 1836] unaccepted version. What would be the best way to fix the current disambig at ''[[Goeppertia]]''? <span style="font-family: Cambria;">[[User:Abductive|<span style="color: teal;">'''Abductive'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 13:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
:If we go with PoWO, ''Goeppertia'' is no longer treated as a synonym of ''Calathea'', so:
:*convert ''[[Goeppertia]]'' to an article about the genus, including a species list
:*have a hatnote at ''[[Goeppertia]]'' re the Nees (1836) name as a synonym of ''[[Endlicheria]]''
:*adjust ''[[Calathea]]'' and its species list for the removal of ''Goeppertia'' and its species
:It loks to me as though Nees von Esenbeck forgot he'd already used the name, because the 1836 protologue and species accounts are much more detailed than the 1831 material, but precedence rules. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 19:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

==Discussion at [[Talk:Ulmus parvifolia 'A. Ross Central Park' = Central Park Splendor]]==
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[Talk:Ulmus parvifolia 'A. Ross Central Park' = Central Park Splendor#Requested move 13 May 2021]].  [[User:Shhhnotsoloud|Shhhnotsoloud]] ([[User talk:Shhhnotsoloud|talk]]) 12:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC){{Z48}}<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->. [[User:Shhhnotsoloud|Shhhnotsoloud]] ([[User talk:Shhhnotsoloud|talk]]) 12:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

== Gnetales v Gnetophyta ==

As I was reading the scientific literature, I noticed how many papers use the term "[[Gnetales]]" as a synonym of what Wikipedia calls [[Gnetophyta]], while Wikipedia uses Gnetales to refer to the clade that contains ''[[Gnetum]]'' only. Should this be changed? Gnetales seems more common in the literature than Gnetophyta to refer to the clade containing the three genera. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Hemiauchenia}} as with other terms, like [[lycophyte]]s vs. [[lycopsid]]s, the rank and terminology varies greatly among sources. One issue to be considered is usage for fossil taxa: "gnetophyte" is used in some paleobotanical sources for a wider group than the extant genera, so there's another usage in which Gnetales = three extant genera + closely related extinct genera, Gnetophyta = gnetales + other extinct genera. But the paleobotanical literature is no more consistent than other sources. The truth, I think, is that without a consensus system like APG for angiosperms, there's no clear way to choose. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 12:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

== Help on article about ''[[Dampiera altissima]]'' ==

Hi guys! I’m a uni student working on the article for ''Dampiera altissima'' for an assignment, could anyone have a look over it in the next couple of days? Thank you! [[User:TheRealDinosaur222|TheRealDinosaur222]] ([[User talk:TheRealDinosaur222|talk]]) 10:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

== Incorrectly italicized page titles ==

There have (always?) been issues with how {{tlx|Automatic taxobox}} handles the italicization of page titles for botanical ranks between genus and species, which require connecting terms. If left to the taxobox default, the title is fully italicized – like ''[[Banksia subser. Longistyles]]'' right now – even if DISPLAYTITLE: is present. Such titles can be forced to be correct by also using {{para|italic_title|no}} and providing a correctly formatted value for {{para|name}} – as at [[Banksia subser. Banksia|''Banksia'' subser. ''Banksia'']] right now – but I am working on changes to {{tlx|Automatic taxobox}} which will, I hope, fix this, either automatically or in a simpler way. So this is just a note to say that if you see an incorrectly italicized page title of a plant article at these ranks, please leave it for now. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 19:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
:Thanks PC. [[User:Brunswicknic|Brunswicknic]] ([[User talk:Brunswicknic|talk]]) 14:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

== Old Commons photo id question solved ==

{{Ping|Lavateraguy|Plantsurfer}} if you remember [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive72#Commons photos identification]], the best we came up with was possibly some species of ''Salvia'' for 3 photos incorrectly identified as ''Nematanthus fritschii''. Leo {{U|86.83.56.115}} has now identified these as [[commons:Category:Scutellaria incarnata]] (we don't have an article). I've categorized them there and requested moving. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 19:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

== Plants of the World Online (mis)treatment of infraspecifics ==

In the course of doing other things, I downloaded all accepted infraspecific taxa listed on [[Plants of the World Online]]. I thought I'd share some of my findings. There are 37,646 accepted infraspecifics; 19,436 subspecies, 17,466 varieties, 398 forms, 306 nothosubspecies, 33 nothovarieties, 6 subvarieties, and [http://plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:17558850-1 1 nothomorth] (abbreviated nm., for those who are wondering). As has been remarked here before, POWO tends towards [[Lumpers and splitters|lumping]], but in particular, they seem to accept only those infraspecifics that differ in their geographical distributions. 

For laughs, I created stubs on the missing species that had the most subspecies; ''[[Hieracium hypochoeroides]]'', 83, and varieties, ''[[Symplocos cochinchinensis]]'', 22. A look at those stubs will reveal examples of a number of (what I regard as) pretty serious failings of the POWO listings:

#They often neglect to include the nominate subtaxa. I am disinclined to add those since it verges on [[WP:OR]]. I feel that POWO employees need to be asked to correct this system-wide. 
#They "hide" synonyms on the infraspecific page(s), even under the forms. This is a major pain, as many people (including myself) have overlooked these synonyms, leading to incomplete Wikipedia articles. 
#The geographical information given in the main species' Distribution section does not jibe with the Distribution sections of the subtaxa; a particularly egregious example is ''[[Symplocos cochinchinensis]]'', which has no subtaxa for some of the locations given in the main POWO listing, and has some subtaxa that range into Australia and the Pacific even though that is not mentioned in the main species listing. I have seen this problem in many listings, suggesting that is is systemic.

Anyway, if anybody want me to post some or all of the infraspecific dataset let me know. <span style="font-family: Cambria;">[[User:Abductive|<span style="color: teal;">'''Abductive'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 09:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
: How did you download the data? I can get the 37,646 accepted infraspecifics using the search, but that doesn't have geographic data. I've had very limited success using pykew and don't understand taxize. —&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;">&nbsp;[[User:Jts1882|Jts1882]]&nbsp;&#124;[[User talk:Jts1882|&nbsp;talk]]&nbsp;</span> 09:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
::I don't know if there is a way to get the geo and syn data without looking at each listing, that's why it's a major pain. <span style="font-family: Cambria;">[[User:Abductive|<span style="color: teal;">'''Abductive'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 12:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
::: I think it should be possible to get taxonomic, nomenclature and geographic information through the API. I just haven't been able to get pykew to work usefully. See [[User_talk:Jts1882#Aside_on_Kew_databases|this discussion]] for the limited progress I made.
::: I think the problem with hiding synonyms is because they are following standard taxonomic practice which doesn't work well with a web interface. In a book the infraspecifics and their synonyms would be listed as part of the species entry, not hived off on separate pages. They need to improve the interactivity of the species page. —&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;">&nbsp;[[User:Jts1882|Jts1882]]&nbsp;&#124;[[User talk:Jts1882|&nbsp;talk]]&nbsp;</span> 13:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
::::My understanding from correspondence with them before the UK lockdown is that it's known that the database underlying PoWO needs consolidating; it's still relatively new. I think that there haven't been full consistency checks between subtaxa and the parent taxon. You also find cases where the parent taxon (genus or species) lists subtaxa, but when you click on them they are marked as "unplaced". The reverse is also true: there are subtaxa, including species, marked as "unplaced" that aren't listed at the parent. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 15:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::IPNI doesn't include nominate subtaxa. I suspect this is because they aren't really "published" in the usual way. With POWO's IDs being forked from IPNI, I'm not surprised that POWO lacks nominate subtaxa. [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] ([[User talk:Plantdrew|talk]]) 16:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
::::::Exactly. So long as they only use IPNI IDs, they can't include nominate infraspecific taxa. WCSP does list them, e.g. [https://wcsp.science.kew.org/namedetail.do?name_id=523518 ''Narcissus assoanus'' subsp. ''assoanus''], which is interesting because the two supposedly use the same underlying database. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 17:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::::They seem to include the nominate subtaxa when they want (or need) to attach synonyms or geographic info to them. <span style="font-family: Cambria;">[[User:Abductive|<span style="color: teal;">'''Abductive'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 20:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
:So, how best to proceed? I've made another stub, ''[[Anthemis cretica]]'', with the same problems. Can anyone repair it? Or is it okay as it is? <span style="font-family: Cambria;">[[User:Abductive|<span style="color: teal;">'''Abductive'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 08:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
::I can't see anything that needs repairing. If a source list any subtaxa, the nominate subtaxon automatically exists even if not listed by the source, so doesn't need a reference.
::But I know that I'm guilty of forgetting to add the nominate subtaxon when extracting lists of subtaxa from sources that don't give it. (It's not just PoWO and plants; the World Spider Catalog also omits nominate subspecies – e.g. [https://wsc.nmbe.ch/search?sFamily=&fMt=begin&sGenus=Aculepeira&gMt=begin&sSpecies=armida&sMt=begin&multiPurpose=slsid&sMulti=&mMt=contain&searchSpec=s this list].) [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 06:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
:::What about the geographic data? Should we believe the main listing or the [[Union (set theory)|union]] of the subtaxa, or the union of the main listing and all the subtaxa? <span style="font-family: Cambria;">[[User:Abductive|<span style="color: teal;">'''Abductive'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 15:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

== Help on article about ''[[Macrozamia glaucophylla]]'' ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I am a university student and a newbie Wikipedia editor. I am working on this page (''[[Macrozamia glaucophylla]]'') as one of my course assignment, would love to listen your opinions and constructive criticism towards my work. Thank you.--[[User:Gabrellaevelyn|Gabrellaevelyn]] ([[User talk:Gabrellaevelyn|talk]]) 05:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

==Articles for a monotypic genus==
On WP I believe that the correct procedure for an article on a species which is the only species within a genus is to name the article with the genus name only, and then describe the species within that article. My query is about Wikidata and how to link the article to it. Wikidata may hold records for both the genus and the species, so which data item should the WP article link to, and which short description should the editor use? Case in point (one I have just edited and now seeking clarification): the article [[Idiospermum]] is linked to the wikidata item for the species, not the genus, yet the article is named for the genus. I have matched the short description to the wikidata species item, but is there a preferred/recommended method for this kind of thing? − <span style="font-family:Arial;background:yellow;border:solid 1px #aa0000;border-radius:5px;">&nbsp;[[User:Junglenut|Junglenut]]&nbsp;&#124;[[User talk:Junglenut|&nbsp;talk]]&nbsp;</span> 10:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|Junglenut}} unfortunately (and wrongly in my view) Wikidata insists on a 1:1 relationship between a Wikidata item and an article in a language wiki. (If you're interested, I've written more at [[User:Peter coxhead/Wikidata issues]].) The best approach generally seems to be to link to the Wikidata item with the most links from other wikis. If the genus and species items have the same number of linked articles, I would use the genus item, because the titles are the same, but it doesn't matter either way. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 19:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
::Wouldn't it be appropriate to to have "two" taxonbars i.e. one for the species, one for the genus e.g. "2 curly brackets Taxonbar|from1=Qspecies|from2=Qgenus 2 curly brackets"? (apologies for clumsy presentation, still learning). This would presumably capture more info. [[User:Brunswicknic|Brunswicknic]] ([[User talk:Brunswicknic|talk]]) 09:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Brunswicknic}} The taxonbar is not really the issue I was raising. The particular article I mentioned already has the manually-added genus and species taxonbars, plus another automatically-added one for the basionym. My question was more about the clarity of the article itself and its short description, as it is named for the genus but describes the species. I don't see why - in this circumstance of a monotypic genus - that there shouldn't be two separate articles. If the genus article becomes a stub, then so be it, but at least then the lay person who reads the articles is less likely to be confused, IMHO. − <span style="font-family:Arial;background:yellow;border:solid 1px #aa0000;border-radius:5px;">&nbsp;[[User:Junglenut|Junglenut]]&nbsp;&#124;[[User talk:Junglenut|&nbsp;talk]]&nbsp;</span> 09:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
{{ping|Junglenut}} Apologies for not scanning the article concerned. Looks good. A stub for the genus surely would simply be a large redirect, if an article addresses directly that it is both about the species and the genus, then the casual reader should be able to understand (and indeed learn a bit more about botanical hierarchy and so on). All the bits of info about one is identical to the other in this case. Of course there may turn out to be more than one species in a previously understood monospecific genus (new discoveries, extinct species...) but then we just have a little more work to do rewriting old pages and making new ones. Such is life/WP. [[User:Brunswicknic|Brunswicknic]] ([[User talk:Brunswicknic|talk]]) 09:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
:Ah yes, good point {{ping|Brunswicknic}} - the article should specify that it is about both the genus and species. Perhaps in cases like this we should depart from the standard structure of a botanical article, and have sections for both genus and species? {{ping|Peter coxhead}}, your thoughts? − <span style="font-family:Arial;background:yellow;border:solid 1px #aa0000;border-radius:5px;">&nbsp;[[User:Junglenut|Junglenut]]&nbsp;&#124;[[User talk:Junglenut|&nbsp;talk]]&nbsp;</span> 10:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
::Wen there is only one species in the genus, the only standard section which could be different is the taxonomy, surely? And the taxonomy of the genus and the species largely overlaps. So what different sections could there be? Description, distribution, ecology, uses, cultivation, etc. are all the same. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 17:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

== Pisonia Umbellifera ==
I was hoping for a review of this article, [[pisonia umbellifera]], which I recently added a lot of detail. Is anyone able to edit, or add some more taxonomy information?
[[User:Peter coxhead|Aliwright01]]([[User talk:Aliwright01|talk]])
:{{ping|Aliwright01}} I gave the article some copy-edits (e.g. scientific names of species should be in italics with the genus name starting with a capital; we don't use 'curly quotes'). The article at {{doi|10.3897/phytokeys.152.50611}} supports other recent articles and [http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:604437-1 Plants of the World Online] in restoring this species to the basionym ''Ceodes umbellifera'', so it should probably be moved to this title. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 06:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|Aliwright01}} I've now added a brief Taxonomy section. You should be able to use the ref I added, {{doi|10.3897/phytokeys.152.50611}}, to expand on the transfer to and back from ''Pisonia''. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 06:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
{{ping|Peter coxhead}} thank you so much, I appreciate it. I have seen a paper on the Pisonia/Ceodes distinction, so I'll be sure to include it.

[[User:Aliwright01|Aliwright01]] ([[User talk:Aliwright01|talk]]) 01:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Update: how do we go about changing the title/requesting a name change for the article from Pisonia to Ceodes Umbellifera

== Need a review of my article [[Dodonaea procumbens]] by May 31st, please! ==
Hi! I have been working hard to expand this article for a university assessment for this semester. The article is stub rated and now it is added around 2000 words, including Description, Distribution, Habitat, Ecology, Putative hybridisation, Similar species, Conservation status, Cultivation, Population information, Decline and Threats, and Activities to protect Dodonaea procumbens. So I would appreciate a review as I believe the article should be upgraded from the stub. Thank you very much for your assistance. [[User:Camorange|Camorange]] ([[User talk:Camorange|talk]]) 22:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)