User talk:Peter coxhead

Please note that if you leave a message for me here, I'll reply to it here, so put this page on your watch list.
If I left a message on your talk page, you can reply there as I'll be watching your page.
This makes it easier to follow the conversation.
Thanks!

TUSC token 4e41785016df312d7f4772b046fd919f

I now have a TUSC account!

Plant article naming convention

Hi Peter coxhead. There is a plant article naming convention request at the Help Desk. I saw your name listed at Naming_conventions_(flora) contributions and am hoping you would post your thoughts at How long does speedy deletion usually take?.[1] I asked Pmanderson on the Pmanderson talk page, but not sure if she/he will see the request. Thanks. --

tetrahedronX7

Hey thank you for editing . My friend

Lists of Salticidae species

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Salticidae species (2nd nomination). Thanks!

Rosa Iceberg

Shouldn't we start the article of Rosa Iceberg with the cultivar name instead of the tradename? Rosa Iceberg is the one of the only rosa articles starting with the tradename. Coldbolt (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, the general rule is to start articles with the title. So either the article is moved to the cultivar name, which I would support, or it starts with the title. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I changed it and replaced all Icebergs with KORbins. Coldbolt (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Coldbolt: well, your action has my support. We'll see if any other editor reacts. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help copy edit for article. Thanks you. Cheung2 (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Lycopodiophyta automatic taxoboxes

There seems to be some muddle in the assignment of orders and genera of lycopods to classes, but I don't know how to fix this. The automatic taxoboxes for Selaginella and Isoetes assign these genera to Lycopodiopsida instead of Isoetopsida, whereas the cladogram in the article on Lycopodiophyta correctly assigns Isoetes, Lepidodendrales and Selaginella to Isoetopsida. Plantsurfer 12:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

There seem to be differences of opinion. The automated taxobox systems references the Pterophyte Phylogeny group, which recognised two classes of pteridophytes: Lycopodiopsida (lycophytes) and Polypodiopsida (ferns). All lycophytes are included in Lycopodiopsida, making it equivalent to Lycopodiophyta (at least for extant species). This seems to be the currently favoured approach, whereas I think splitting the lycophytes into two classes is more traditional.   Jts1882 | talk  12:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

That does not explain the muddle and lack of consistency between lycopod articles. For example, if that PPG defines the taxonomy that is currently accepted (is there an RS for that?) then the article Lycopodiophyta needs to be rewritten to reflect it and the Isoetes article is inconsistent in referring to Isoetopsida. Plantsurfer 14:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

We had a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive69#Pteridophyte classification. I fixed the categories, and some of the articles to use PPG I as the main system for taxoboxes and article names, and as there was no dissent (although not much positive support) I have on my over-long "to-do" list to sort out some more of the articles, while of course mentioning the alternatives. It would be good if there were more editors willing to work on this!

To the level of order, PPG I (for extant taxa) is as follows, and as you can see by following the links, is mostly implemented, allowing for monotypic taxa. I've noted the two that need to be fixed. The counts are from PPG I and are of extant taxa only.

• Class Lycopodiopsida Bartl. – 3 orders; the article needs to be fixed to say that the class includes 3 orders in the PPG I system, and the Lycopodiales info moved out
  • • Order Lycopodiales DC. ex Bercht. & J.Presl – 1 family; needs a new article, not to redirect upwards, or downwards because it's not monofamilial when you include extinct spp. according to some accounts
    • Order Isoetales Prantl – 1 family
    • Order Selaginellales Prantl – 1 family
• Class Polypodiopsida Cronquist, Takht. & W.Zimm. – 11 orders; I don't think that "fern" is the right English name for the article now that it includes horsetails; "fern" as commonly understood is a paraphyletic group within Polypodiopsida
  • Subclass Equisetidae Warm. – 1 order
    • Order Equisetales DC. ex Bercht. & J.Presl – 1 family
  • Subclass Ophioglossidae Klinge – 2 orders
    • Order Psilotales Prant – 1 family
    • Order Ophioglossales Link – 1 family
  • Subclass Marattiidae Klinge – 1 order
    • Order Marattiales Link – 1 family
  • Subclass Polypodiidae Cronquist, Takht. & W.Zimm. – 7 orders
    • Order Osmundales Link – 1 family
    • Order Hymenophyllales A.B.Frank – 1 family
    • Order Gleicheniales Schimp – 3 families
    • Order Schizaeales Schimp. – 3 families
    • Order Salviniales Link – 2 families
    • Order Cyatheales A.B.Frank – 8 families
    • Order Polypodiales Link – 26 families

But, as Plantsurfer found, there is more that needs to be done to make articles consistent at a lower level.

A remaining, and unsolved (unsolvable at present?) problem is the ranks above PPG I's class. Their paper says "The present classification recognizes the two classes [of Ruggiero et al. (2015)] but does not make recommendations above this rank." The taxonomy templates are inconsistent, as are our articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Further issues are with these articles, since they don't explain how they relate to the PPG I system, and links within them go to a different circumscription than intended.

• Lycopodiophyta – for example, in the two cladograms, "Lycopodiopsida" has the same wikilink, but has two totally different senses: the first would be something like Lycopodiidae if the PPG used the subclass, the second is the PPG I sense, allowing for extinct taxa
• Lycopodiidae
• Isoetopsida

Peter coxhead (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Eucalyptus gregoryensis

Hello Peter - grovelling request for help. The Australian Plant Census (although not WCSP) has changed the name of Eucalyptus gregoriensis to E. gregoryensis. So, I have swapped the article about the former with the redirect at the other. That means E. gregoryensis does not have a Talk page with the article history. I have page mover rights (thanks to you) but when I use them I stuff things up. (I'm not a tech-head obviously.) Any help or advice would be much appreciated. Gderrin (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You can move a page over a redirect if it only has a single edit, the edit history or attempt to move the page will tell you otherwise (you could have moved the page yourself before you edited the target of the move). Someone who knows how to use a delete tool can merge the history of the two pages, probably an admin, @Graham87: does a good job on history merges. cygnis insignis 01:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you and thanks @Graham87: and @Cygnis insignis:. I hope I get better with age! Gderrin (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gderrin: All fixed, after a bit of toing and froing; please don't do any more cut-and-paste moves. Thanks @Cygnis insignis: for the ping. Graham87 04:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Dipsacus fullonum

Hi Peter - the recently published Stace 4 places Dipsacus fullonum in Dipsacaceae, unchanged from Stace 3. Is that now incorrect? The article Dipsacaceae states "The species are currently placed in the family Caprifoliaceae" but does not give any further information. Is there a reliable source for that change? Plantsurfer 10:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Stace has a number of variations from the APG IV system we use here, which does not recognize Dipsacaceae. So the source is APG IV – Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (2016), "An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV", Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 181 (1): 1–20, doi:10.1111/boj.12385. The reason underlying the differences is that Stace accepts paraphyletic taxa when they are clearly morphologically distinguishable (and has argued for their acceptance in several published papers), but the APG, like the majority of botanical taxonomists, does not. I'm with Stace, myself (e.g. on the value of Lemnaceae as opposed to sinking it into Araceae), but trend is very clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but since Stace 4 is the go-to work on ID of British plants, it would be helpful if the reason for that discrepancy was made clear to readers of the affected articles. As it is, the APG IV source is inaccessible except to subscribers, so we're mostly in the dark. Plantsurfer 13:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, you can use PoWO as the reference, which I do now, because it uses APG IV (at least in my experience). See here and upwards to the genus and family. Yes, I had to buy the new Stace, because it's essential for even amateur UK botanists like me, but as I noted above, he's in a minority on family placements not in APG IV. Peter coxhead (talk)

AGP IV is inaccessible? The article at the Botanical Journal is accessible to me. Is there something else that I'm missing?   Jts1882 | talk  17:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I can only access Bot J Linn Soc if I am connected to the internet from within my University or from outside by the University's proxy server. As a private individual I have no access, and I am sure that applies to most other private individuals without corporate permissions. Plantsurfer 18:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

talk page stalker: have you tried Sci-Hub? If you aren't opposed to morally ambiguous behavior, it's the way to go. I've been able to locate pretty much every article I've searched for on Sci-Hub. Enwebb (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not connecting through a university. I get access as a nobody on the web (assuming there is not something else I'm missing). Try diabling Javascript, this sometimes works, although I can't block my access this way.   Jts1882 | talk  19:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocking JavaScript is no longer an option in Microsoft Edge. Plantsurfer 19:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It's very odd, because I just looked from home in the UK on my iPad and access was fine. It can't be Javascript, because that's on. The paper is marked as free access by the journal. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

And I can access it from the publisher as full text or PDF via the hotel internet connection I'm using tonight. Plantdrew (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Dipsacales Adoxaceae Caprifoliaceae Diervillaceae (for Weigela) Caprifoliaceae sensu stricto (incl. Heptacodium) Zabelia Morinaceae Linnaeaceae Valerianaceae Dipsacaceae (incl. Triplostegia) sensu lato

The article on family Caprifoliaceae has bit more information and includes Dipsacaceae genera under subfamily Dipsacoideae. The Angiosperm Phylogeny website has some explanation in the classification section for Caprifoliaceae about the reasons for (AGP III) and against (AGP II) subsuming Dipsacaceae and Valerianaceae in Caprifoliaceae s.l. (see section Dipsacales). There is also mention of a new phylogentic analysis by Xiang et al. 2019 that retains the traditional families (Edit: added cladogram of their Fig. 1). Perhaps the subfamily Dipsacoideae should appear in the taxobox for Dipsacus fullonum.   Jts1882 | talk  07:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Groan!! But this is even more reason for articles to have a clear statement of where the stated taxonomy is coming from, and also, perhaps, not to be too eager to comply with the findings of the most recent published analysis. I am not arguing against following APG, far from it, but British readers need an explanation for the discrepancies between APG and Stace IV, and currently this is not being given in the relevant articles.

@Plantsurfer: we can't reasonably be expected to add this information to every species article. I argued long ago when I started editing here that taxoboxes should have some way of indicating the system in use (it would help with the current muddle over the classification used for pteridophytes, as just one example). So angiosperm taxoboxes would have some way of indicating that an APG system was in use (and indeed which one). I don't recall getting much support. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:No, agreed, the explanation cannot be given in extenso for each species, but it would be a simple(r) matter to add the relevant citation to the taxobox. Dipsacus and the species articles, for example, do not cite APG IV anywhere, so an immediate improvement would be simply to add the citation to the Speciesbox/Automatic taxobox after Caprifoliaceae. Ordinary editors cannot do that of course. Plantsurfer 12:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Santalales
Scientific classification (Using AGP-IV)
Kingdom:	Plantae
Clade:	Tracheophytes
Clade:	Angiosperms
Clade:	Eudicots
Clade:	Superasterids
Order:	Santalales
Families
See text

Some way of indicating the taxonomy system would be a valued edition. There is the parameter |classification_status= that could indicate the system (see example right), although integrating it with the automated taxonomy system would be better.   Jts1882 | talk  13:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I agree with both points. The problem, though, with integrating it into the automated taxobox system is that in principle every taxonomy template could be using a different system (at present the taxonomy templates for some pteridophyte taxa use different systems at different ranks – it's something I've been working on). So there would have to be an optional field in every taxonomy template giving the system, and then some way of summarizing/showing it in the taxobox. It's technically possible (as you will know); the issue is one of presentation, and whether editors would fill in |system= – |refs= is very patchy. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

A few thoughts on this.

• The taxonomy templates have a reference that is expected to provide a source for its parent taxon and nothing more about the system. In practice many references are missing or inaccurate; often the parent is changed without the reference being changed. So as you suggest something else in taxonomy templates should be considered.
• A |system flag=yes/no parameter could be used to indicate that the reference refers to a system. A |system-reference= parameter could give a reference for a broader system.
• Alternatively the system reference could refer to a code for an approved system. Approval of systems would be a matter for various projects (e.g. Plants could approve AGP IV, Gastropods could approve the Bouchet (?) system used by WoRMS).
• Taxonomic systems have range: APG-IV covers angiosperms down to class. Ruggiero covers kingdoms down to order, etc. The range could be indicated by a background colour in the taxonomy listing or a border around the appropriate cells, with a reference applied to the top taxon.

The biggest problem is getting people to fill in the appropriate parameters. Overall, I think it will only work when the projects take a strong interest in the taxonomy, which is why I favour an approved taxonomy approach, but the barriers to getting such a system working will be substantial.   Jts1882 | talk  08:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I will have another look at why I seem to be unable to access pdfs from Bot.J.Linn.Soc. except under corporate proxy. I see a demand for payment. Plantsurfer 10:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Plantsurfer: just a thought – could it be something to do with tracking and cookies? I have Firefox's strong "don't track me" option on most of the time. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Taxonomy template refs indicator in the taxobox

Butting in here. I would support displaying the |ref= parameter in the box. I think it is poorly maintained because it remains only of arcane use to template editors. If all readers could see it, I think editors would more likely pay attention to it. Adding another parameter for people to brush off wouldn’t work, in my view. Start with what we have and then if that doesn’t work maybe add another parameter. --Nessie (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@NessieVL: I'm inclined to agree, and it's actually on my to-do list (well, stack actually), but hasn't been given high priority. Currently I'm trying to sort out pteridophytes to PPG I; after that?? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I agree too. Writing out the options made the scale of any changes to deal with taxonomy systems clear to me. It's likely to get resistance even if a good approach can be devised. Starting with the references already present in the taxonomy templates seems a good step in the right direction. One issue would be duplicate references, both with the article and within the taxobox, but improving sourcing of information is presumably more important.   Jts1882 | talk  15:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

We can't display the content of the ref field in the taxobox because (1) as you say, it may be a duplicate (2) it may be in a different reference style from the article, which isn't allowed. Templates cannot display refs, for these reasons. My idea was to have a small marker to show there is a ref, which if clicked on would go to the taxonomy template. Perhaps a superscript "r" to the right of the cell? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

IMO those reasons are dumb, but I guess we're stuck with them. The ^R option is the best remaining option. It should have hovertext that says "reference" though. --Nessie (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC) (P.S. I don’t mean to imply that you are dumb nor that your reasoning is dumb --Nessie (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC))

I'm not convinced WP:CITESTYLE or WP:CITEVAR prevent the display of the reference. They are style preferences, but there are also indications that providing a RS is more important than the style guidelines (e.g. see WP:DUPCITES). However, there are complications with including the reference.

I've made some changes to the automated taxonomy in Module:Autotaxobox/sandbox with a demo in User:Jts1882/sandbox/templates/test. For demonstration purposes, the presence of a reference is displayed three ways: adding the reference, with an icon, and with just text. All have a tooltip. Any suggestions?   Jts1882 | talk  11:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I can only say with respect to WP:CITESTYLE and WP:CITEVAR that I know from experience that this issue raises huge passions among some editors (CS1 vs. CS2, YYYY-MM-DD access dates vs. MMM DD, YYYY or DD MMM YYYY, etc. (See WP:WikiProject Citation cleanup's first goal, for example.) It has been a killer in the past when editors wanted to display references via templates. In an ideal world, we would have style-free information in citation templates plus an entirely separate indication of the styles to be used. But we don't. (And many refs don't use templates anyway.)

I prefer the superscript ^R, with or without the brackets, and the tool tip "Reference in taxonomy template". Peter coxhead (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Stem

As you still seem to think that compounds are made of genitives, please read the paper of the botanist Dan Henry Nicolson, see here. Wimpus (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Why do you keep misrepresenting what I write and telling me what I think? I think no such thing. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is your edit summary:

"yes, but the adjectival form is derived from the genitive, as the ICNafp says; it's not helpful to readers not to show where the "r" comes from)"

And here your remark:

"The precise origin of the latinized andrus isn't explicitly given in any source I've yet found but it would be reasonable to deduce that it is formed, as adjectives almost always are, from the genitive stem of the noun, i.e. in this case the ancient Greek genitive ἀνδρός. I see no harm whatsoever in condensing this into something like the original. In this context, -andrus is indeed derived from the Greek word ἀνδρός, and it means "male (part)"."

In theses cases, it seems that your words are actually pointing in that direction. Wimpus (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wimpus: please stop edit-warring and read and respond to what I have written below. If there's anything that isn't clear, please say so. If there's anything I've got wrong, please explain. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Long answer and suggestions

I've tried to explain several times that the issue is how to condense a complex derivational process into something useful to our readers, not to etymologically expert linguists.

If no suitable word already exists, one algorithm for creating a Latinized botanical specific epithet which is an adjective with the meaning 'x yed' = 'with x ys' is as follows. (x is an adjective and y a noun.) Every step can be sourced from the ICNafp and a source for Botanical Latin, such as Stearn.

1. find the lexemes in Greek or Latin with meanings x and y (lexemes not words); as is conventional the lexemes will be represented by their nominative singulars (masculine for the adjective); let these be Lx and Ly
2. remove the masculine nominative singular ending from Lx; transliterate into the Roman alphabet if required; let the result be Rx
3. look up the genitive singular of the noun; let this be Gy
4. remove the genitive singular ending from Gy; transliterate into the Roman alphabet if required; let the result be Ry
5. if the source language of the lexemes is Greek, set the combining vowel, V, to "i"; if it's Latin, set V to "o"
6. based on the gender of the genus name, set the ending E to "us", "a" or "um"
7. assemble the word Rx+V+Ry+E

Worked example

We want to create an adjectival epithet meaning 'pale-flowered' = 'with pale flowers' to go with a feminine gender genus name. So x = pale, y = flower.

1. in Latin, pallidus is available (although it has an underlying derivation), so Lx = "pallidus"; in Botanical Latin, flos is used, so Ly = "flos"
2. removing us from pallidus gives Rx = "pallid"
3. the genitive singular of flos is floris, so Gy = "floris"
4. removing the genitive ending is gives Ry = "flor"
5. this is Latin so V = "i"
6. as the genus name is feminine, E = "a"
7. the result is "pallid"+"i"+"flor"+"a" = "pallidiflora"

Since we don't want to repeat all of this just to give the origin of an appropriate epithet in every article about a species, we have to condense. I'm not sure what the best answer is.

You can reduce it to saying that Rx+V+Ry+E is derived from Lx and Ly or to saying that it is derived from Lx and Gy. In the worked example, either that pallidiflora is derived from pallidus and flos or that it's derived from pallidus and floris. Both can be found in botanical sources. Both are true, but both are incomplete. The problem with saying Lx and Ly is that when the stem of the nominative singular of Ly is not spelt the same way as the stem of the genitive singular, the derivation is not obvious to those who don't know the declension of the lexeme (nor does it explain the ending E when this differs from the ending of Ly). The problem with saying Lx and Gy is that the first is a word being used as the name of a lexeme and the second is a genitive singular, and so not the lexeme/headword that will be found in a dictionary.

It may that the best answer is to add the genitive singular when it differs from the nominative singular (as dictionaries almost always do). So we would write: "Rx+V+Ry+E is derived from Lx and Ly (genitive singular Gy)". In the worked example, that pallidiflora is derived from pallidus and flos (genitive singular floris). (With sources, of course.)

Another answer would be to put worked examples of the above (with sources of course) in one of the articles on botanical nomenclature and then use a "see" link to it.

I don't know the best answer, but I am certain that it isn't just to give Lx and Ly when there's a change in spelling between Ly and Gy. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The easiest solution would be to add the genitive singular (but in my second response I will further describe the dos and don'ts). I am not against adding a genitive, but I am against:

1. mentioning only the genitive

2. providing (only) the genitive without mentioning that it is a genitive case

3. providing only the genitive and give the translation for the nominative singular

In case you would say that floris is the name for flower in Latin, I would not consider that as incomplete, but merely as incorrect, as floris means of a flower. It is merely an incorrect translation or the wrong word was choosen (for that specific translation). When someone would ask me the Greek name of the highest Greek deity, I have to provide the name Ζεύς and not Διός, although I can tell additionally that Διός is the genitive case. In case I would have stated in a preface, that the genitive instead of a nominative case is given, than the reader would be aware, that not a nominative, but a genitive case is mentioned. But if a reader on Wiki, where there is no preface explaining certain issues, reads that Διός is the Greek name of Zeus, he will be confused and|or misinformed.

That the genitive case is given within botany with providing a translation that belongs to a nominative case, without even providing the nominative case, can be done on purpose. Authors could be fully aware that it is a genitive case. But it could also be done by accident or by knowing little Latin and even less Greek. It would be OR, to infer that the authors knew what they were doing and actually provided compos mentis a genitive case and a translation of the nominative case. We do not know, whether the translation belongs to this non-mentioned nominative case or to the word they have provided. In case we would try to explain the insufficient data provided by the describing authors, as: "They probably meant this as genitive case", we could also interpret andra as accusative case (Gr. acc. ἄνδρα), or calce as ablative case, neo as Latin dative or ablative case, or phylla as nominative plural, despite that it is translated by the describing authors as nominative singular.

In the example of calce, you can see that Brown translates the second word, genus as "born or produced in a certain place", while this probaly would apply to –genus (as genus without a hyphen is birth, descent, origin). Stating that the authors provided the ablative case and a verbal root with a certain ending (= -genus) would be OR. So, it is therefore questionable to write the describing authors provided a genitive singular, dative singular, accusative singular, ablative singular or nominative plural, when they did not explicitely mentioned that they were providing a genitive singular, dative singular, accusative singular, ablative singular or nominative plural case. My second response will be written later. Wimpus (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

My second response: You have suggested that we could make clear how the compounding process would take place, or how one could compound words into a compound. It does not surprise me, that your modus operandi resembles rule 60.10. of the Code. Therefore I want to adress certain issues in relation to the code.

What does the Code tells us: see here

60.10. Adjectival epithets that combine elements derived from two or more Greek or Latin words are to be compounded as follows:

A noun or adjective in a non-final position appears as a compounding form generally obtained by

(a) removing the case ending of the genitive singular (Latin ae, i, us, is; transcribed Greek ou, os, es, as, ous and its equivalent eos) and

(b) before a consonant, adding a connecting vowel ( i- for Latin elements, o- for Greek elements).

1. The modus operandi as provided by rule 60.10 of the Code is not the only way to construct a full compound. For botanists that might be familiar with all the cases of a word, we can not state that they used the genitive case and then performed all the steps as described by rule 60.10. Botanists could also used word-forming elements instead. This rule 60.10 might even be complicated for some botanists as it necessitates for certain words to be checked in a Greek dictionary, while they might be unfamiliar with the Greek script. So, we have to be careful, to even suggest that the modus operandi of rule 60.10 was used.

2. The stem as can be found in the genitive is not always used in compounds. The i-stem, u-stem and diphthong-stem words seem to be neglected in the Code. The genitive of βάσις is βάσεως, the genitive of βραχύς is βραχέως, the genitive of ἰχθύς is ἰχθύος, the genitive of βασιλεύς is βασιλέως. Compounds are normally formed with basi-, brachy-, ichthy- (although the latter could be inferred by coincidence from the Code). The Code is of no use for such examples and highly misleading. In case I would interpret the genitive ending –eos in the Code as representing –έως as in βραχέως or βάσεως, I would end up with words like brachopus, brachocephalus, basopetalus, basoscopicus and so fort.

The genitive in these cases is subject to all kind of sound laws, zero grade/full/lenghthened-grade processes, quantitative metathesis et cetera. Whether the genitive is of any help in these examples can be disputed. And whether the Code is of any help in explaining how people arrive at forms like brachypus is also questionable.

3. We can not suggest that the procedure of rule 60.10, is a (flawless) modus operandi to find the stem of a word. If I remove –i from pallidi, I will not find the stem of pallidus, as the stem is pallido-, a so-called o-stem. If I remove –ae from tunicae, the result is not the stem, as tunica- is, a so-called a-stem. If I remove –eos from the genitive εἶδεος, I will get εἶδ-, while εἶδες- is the stem in the genitive case, before the genitive case-ending is attached. It is therefore incorrect to suggest, that the procedure as mentioned by the Code enables us to find the stem (in each and single case). The nominative case for Latin a-stem words and the dative case for Latin o-stem words seem even more of assistence (although I am not suggesting to use the dative case for Latin o-stem as that is more of a coincidence found in orthography).

4. The Code speaks of an a noun or adjective in a non-final position, not of a noun or adjective in a final position In pallidiflora, flos is in the final position. In this case, it would benefit the reader to know what is going to happen with the –s- of the stem flos- (the –r- in the oblique cases is due to rhotacism), when a vowel is appended (it becomes –r-), but in case of tripes or brachypus the –d- of the stem is also obscured in the compound, as an -s- is added in the nominative case of the compound. Providing the genitive case (pedis and ποδός), could be confusing.

5. The procedure as suggested by the Code is not always applicable in case of derivation. The stem of flos is actually flos- as flos is an s-stem. Although the stem seems to altered in other cases, when a vowel follows this -s- (rhotacism), the –s- remains an -s- when followed by a consonant. Providing the genitive floris or corporis, might be confusing when explaining flosculus or corpusculum.

6. The Code is not applicable to malformed compounds. A form like Melaleuca can not be properly explained by using the Code, as the stem of μέλας is μέλαν-. In ancient Greek the –n- is present in almost all cases (but changed to gamma, mu, lambda, rho, due to the succeeding consonants in various words). The explanation that rupicola is derived from rupestris and –cola, can not be explained by using the Code, as rupestris and –cola can never be contracted to rupicola. Additionally, the Code speaks of two or more Greek or Latin words, while –cola is derived from a verbal root, not from a word.

In my response, I tried to make clear, that we have to be carefull, not to provide information, that is evidently not true, misleading or confusing. In case you want to add the Code as source, for explaining a certain compound, you have to be aware of these issues. And when you add secondary sources, you have to be careful how to interpret these. Wimpus (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is all very interesting and I thank you both for the information. I want to contribute two points -

1. No plant field guide, journal article or monograph in my possession has any of this material. I do not understand why anybody would want to add, and certainly not read, any of it in a Wikipedia article about plants. Much of it would probably be better included in the article Botanical Latin, to which few editors have contributed (although about ten read every day). Moreover, it is insulting to distinguished scientists, to add that a name is "said to be derived" by a botanist like Alex George, followed by "the proper Greek...". Those statements, or statements with a similar intent, are not in any published botanical reference that I have read - they are only in Wikipedia.

2. If it is being suggested that Australian plants have been given names that do not comply with the official naming conventions (rules), that can not be correct. There are teams of professional taxonomists working at highly respected institutions, including the Royal Botanic Garden, Sydney, Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria, Australian National Botanic Gardens and Kew Gardens. They agree almost without exception. (The only exception I've found is Caladenia gertrudae which Kew gives the name C. gertrudiae.) Anybody wishing to question the authorities can do so and will receive a courteous reply from Anna Munro (at ANBG) or Rafaël Govaerts (at Kew).

Having said that, I can not see any consensus being reached here. Gderrin (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gderrin: I agree entirely with your points. I had hoped that Wimpus would read and respond to what I had written which was an attempt (1) to explain why botanists, not being linguists, could perfectly reasonably write what Alex George did, by showing in detail one sourced way of creating epithets, and then (2) to try reach a consensus on a way of clarifying a derivation when to a linguist it appears that the etymology is not quite right, or at least not quite complete, a clarification that would be useful to our readers, not to etymologically expert linguists. However, this hasn't happened. So the best we can do for now is simply to quote the author(s). A pity, because Wimpus has made some useful corrections (e.g. to my careless reading of Salisbury in September 2013 re the genus name Corybas). Peter coxhead (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Gderrin his account regarding the veracity of the etymological explanation of some of the leading Australian botanists seems to be an argumentum ad verecundiam. This argument has it merits, as I would similarly trust a laudated authority more than just a random anonymous Wikipedia editor.
On RS we can read: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." It becomes troublesome, as Chinnock is actually not an authority on etymology as such. And more authoritative sources on etymology, can easily show that such a statement of Chinnock that malacoides would be derived from Greek malae-, that would mean soft according to Chinnock, is actually questionable. Greek lexica and etymological dictionaries are not being rewritten, due to the discovery of Chinnock of this previously unknown Greek word-part. Other new discoveries of Chinnock, like, parvi, oppositi, caule, poda, phylla and sepala would not be considered as any serious etymological contribution by linguists.
This might be comparable to a philosopher that borrow all kind of concepts from quantum physics to explain his philosophical stance, without being formally trained as a physicist. I would trust the philosopher more on his knowledge on Immanuel Kant, than on his voyage into the depths of quantum physics. While, the philosopher might easily publish his flirtations with quantum physics in a peer-reviewed philosophical journal, his passages about quantum physics would be difficult to publish in a physics journal, where reviewers that are formally trained as physicists, will scrutinize each single quantum physics detail. The publication of Chinnock is probably scrutinized on all kind of botanical minutiae, but probably less on the etymological analysis, as most of his peers will not be formally trained on etymological analyses and some of his peers are not familiar with Latin or Greek at all. We can not prima facie state, that Chinnock is not an authoritative source on the exact etymological analysis of some of the epithets (although the quoted sentence of RS does not automically makes him an authorative source on etymology], but on a case-by-case basis, where the words differ entirely from what is actually found in more respectable sources (considering etymology), we can not, without any reservation or notice, add this to Wikipedia. Otherwise, we would present something as a fact that can be easily disproved.
Peter coxhead stated earlier: "Well, we should not state as if it were a fact something that isn't true. Perhaps write something like "The specific name is said to be derived from the Latin gumnos.REF The ancient Greek γυμνός means 'nude'.REF"". I am still in favor of Peter coxhead's earlier statement.
So, I am still in favor to discuss what to do, when etymological incorrect analysis are presented by primary of secondary sources. Peter coxhead stated in his response: "I had hoped that Wimpus would read and respond to what I had written which was an attempt (1) to explain why botanists, not being linguists, could perfectly reasonably write what Alex George did, by showing in detail one sourced way of creating epithets, and then (2) to try reach a consensus on a way of clarifying a derivation when to a linguist it appears that the etymology is not quite right, or at least not quite complete, a clarification that would be useful to our readers, not to etymologically expert linguists." I hoped to make clear, that in some cases, it would be to much OR, to infer what the describing authors intended, but did not wrote. I gave a few examples, like floris, neo, andra, calce and phylla, that could be reinterpreted as genitive, dative, accusative, ablative singular and nominative plural case, but could easily be explained otherwise (actually not mentioned, but there are several possibilities). In case a clear modus operandi is used by each single botanist , then I would be less of OR, to infer what is probably intended. But now, it is too much Hineininterpretierung.< br/> Gderrin writes: "Moreover, it is insulting to distinguished scientists, to add that a name is "said to be derived" by a botanist like Alex George, followed by "the proper Greek...". Those statements, or statements with a similar intent, are not in any published botanical reference that I have read - they are only in Wikipedia." In this review of Philip H. Oswald of A primer of botanical Latin with vocabulary of Short and George, sentences like The book is generally accurate but just not quite accurate enough for a reference work. and I can scarcely fault it, but I do question the feminine gender of chromosoma and periderma and the masculine gender of soma, which I think must be neuter like other nouns of Greek origin ending in -ma. can be found. Short and George would probably have been not pleased with the designation that their book is not quite accurate enough for a reference work, but as the reviewer stumbled on various lapsus, he could not ignore those facts.
We are not in the position to use similar phrases (Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi), and it might be even unpleasant for some Botanists to read on Wikipedia that their etymological explanations conflict with other sources, however we can not pretend nothing is wrong and add conflicting etymological explantions and knowingly propagate false etymologies. In stead of using is said to be derived, we could also use according to George or similar phrases. But we have still to make clear, that the word or meaning does not correspond to other sources. So, it is too preliminary to conclude that this case is closed. Wimpus (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It needs to be remembered that botanists do not write papers and then publish them. They are peer-reviewed. In the case of Robert Chinnock's monograph, it was reviewed by professional botanists, including Stephen Hopper, who at the time was the Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and is now Professor in the Science Faculty of the University of Western Australia. Hopper wrote the foreward to Chinnock's book. The last part of his long foreward reads: " A solid systemic framework is the key for interest in and action with living organisms. Accurate names are indispensible currency for conservation, cultivation, landcare, mine-site restoration and medicinal and other uses of plant life. All with a love of the Australian outback are enriched through Bob providing this masterful taxonomic account. I offer heartfelt congratulations to Bob Chinnock on achievement of a significant career milestone, and hope you enjoy learning more about Eremophila and allied genera as much as I have in reading this book." (Perhaps those who would criticise should do likewise.)

I do not doubt that Chinnock's book is of high standards regarding the botanical descriptions, but I surely doubt whether his etymologies are at the same level. I have tried to explain that Chinnock is not an expert on etymology. Evidently he is not, given all those errors. But maybe, you can explain why reference to Greek malae- is correct. Please try! That is one of my main arugments, and therefore Chinnock is actually not a RS for etymology. In case Chinnock is the describing author, we have to refer to Chinnock for the etymology, but when Chinnock is trying to explain what Robert Brown or another 19th-century author might have tought, other sources have to be used instead. Wimpus (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Simple - because it's in Chinnock's monograph. I don't think you understand WP:RS. Whether a published sources is reliable or not, for etymology or anything else, is not up to you. There are more than 200 species in that book. Most are new species named and described by Chinnock himself, each with a Latin diagnosis (a 60 word description in Latin for E. malacoides). Part of being a taxonomist is having a through understanding of botanical Latin. Incidentally, I no longer include etymologies in the plant pages I start or expand, (20 in the last week) for fear of having a botanist insulted by having "the proper Latin" added to the article. That's a pity, because I think many readers would like to know. Gderrin (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not yet have George's Primer of Botanical Latin with Vocabulary to hand, but expect with ten days to be able to say whether Oswald was quoting from a proof copy or from the published book. However, Oswald wrote: "Nevertheless I strongly commend this book to botanical historians, perhaps even more than to taxonomists, and hope that a second edition will be even better." I suggest that any mistakes were made by the publisher rather than by George or Short. But whatever is in that book does not detract from George's reputation as an authority on botanical Latin. Gderrin (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Corybas

In a way, I think the name Corybas was inspired by Corysanthes, if Brown and Bauer were using it before it was published in 1810. cygnis insignis 06:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: well, as explained at Richard Anthony Salisbury, Salisbury engaged in some doubtful practices, so being inspired by someone else's name and not saying so is quite plausible. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: whoops, I didn't see that you actually wrote quite a bit of Richard Anthony Salisbury! Peter coxhead (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd forgotten. And it is heavily plagiarised from Boulger in the DNB! cygnis insignis 14:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Brown and Bauer are highly regarded round my way, a crucially import visit, so the reporting in my sources on Salisbury do not put him in a good light. There is some more stuff I can add to the article one day, I have some notes somewhere. cygnis insignis 07:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

What's annoying, historically, about Salisbury, is that although there are good sources for his dubious behaviour, he was actually a good botanist, and made observations and distinctions that may have been disputed at the time, but were later upheld. I hope you have time to add to the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah! I found the paper I was thinking of, but can't find it online library cat. The authors note the multiple and unacknowledged contributions to Brown's Prodomus, which included the "scientific outcast" Mr. Salisbury. And our collaborator above @Wimpus: would be impressed with Salisbury's enthusiasm for correcting Robert Brown's Latin. Corybas was not reinstated until 1940, by an ICBN ruling, so studiously ignored was his works. cygnis insignis 13:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: there's a bit more about the paper here. As I wrote most of the article on Salisbury's The Paradisus Londinensis, which contains material relating to one controversy (in which Salisbury was actually wronged), I'd be interested to see the paper if anyone does have access to an electronic copy. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

If an electronic copy is not forthcoming I will work out how to scan it and open a dropbox, because I'm sure you could make better use of their examination of the history. The authors refer to Salisbury's annotated copy of Brown's Prodomus, with alleged credit given the actual originator of an idea or theory, and discuss the prejudice on who could make an acceptable publication. cygnis insignis 14:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't forgotten about this, the paper I mentioned, but not sure how to make it available to you. I believe you would make better use of it than I would. If you are wanting some examples of borrowing, Australian taxonomists are busily naming thylacinid genera using Richard Owen's kynos, quite appropriately, and living species of night birds in genera combining mops, such as Ozimops [cringes] with statements that that is the etymology.

All that is merely interesting, on the topic of the contributions of Wimpus, I am not seeing a benefit and think that their mainspace edits need to be curtailed. I believe that is overdue, although they are not appearing on my watchlist or insulting me, so I'm becoming inclined to seek an administrative action at another venue. ~ cygnis insignis 12:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: Re the paper, if you do have a copy you can put in Dropbox or something similar, you could let me know via the Wikipedia e-mail this user link.

Re Wimpus, what's frustrating is that they are clearly knowledgeable, and could be useful here, but don't seem to know how to collaborate. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hibiscus and it being saponaceous

@Peter coxhead:, shalom. I noticed where you were reluctant to add the category "Saponaceous plants" to the genera "Hibiscus." First, the word "saponaceous" simply means that the plant produces a "soap-like" lather. This is evident for the Hibiscus plant from two sources: One, a YouTube video seen here, and the other a written account in the book Maimonides (1963–1967). Mishnah, with Maimonides' Commentary (in Hebrew). Vol. 1–3. Translated by Yosef Qafih. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. OCLC 183905585., in vol. 1, where the editor, Yosef Qafih, writes about a soap being derived from the plant Althaea officinalis, based on an earlier Arabic designation which calls the plant خطمي (transliterated = ḫaṭmī), or what is also known as Hibiscus. In all places, the Arabic word for this plant is explained as Hibiscus, as you can also see here, in this online Arabic-French dictionary, and which Yosef Qafih names explicitly, using its taxonomic name, as being the species in question. It is my understanding, from Yosef Qafih's identification of this plant and from which a soap compound was made, that the common denominator between all these species of Hibiscus is that they produce a lathery, soap-like latex. Feel free to do with the category as you wish, but, in my view, it is still accurate with respect to the genus. shalom, Davidbena (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Davidbena: the article at Hibiscus is about the genus Hibiscus, not the set of plants called by the English name "hibiscus" or the equivalent vernacular name in any other language. It's about the genus, which necessarily includes all of the species in that genus (whose scientific names will be Hibiscus ...). Thus Althaea officinalis may be known as "hibiscus" but is not in any way part of the article. The question is whether all the species in the genus Hibiscus are saponaceous, and I haven't seen any source that says so. You can, of course, add the category to articles about individual species where there are reliable sources to support it, including Althaea officinalis. Ideally there should be text in the article to support the categorization. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I accept your analysis on this, because this is your special field of expertise. When I find the time, I'll search more about the genus Hibiscus on Jstor and elsewhere. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

One of these days...

...I'll manage to implement a speciesbox without creating more work for someone else. Thanks. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Elmidae: no worries, I monitor the error-tracking categories for taxoboxes and taxonomy templates most days, and it's unusual not to find fixes needed. (I make mistakes myself sometimes, and even Plantdrew does occasionally!) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I accidentally made Template:Taxonomy/Gaussia yesterday. I'd intended to include the disambiguation (plant) as there is also a copepod genus Gaussia. I'm not going to worry about it since other editors don't necessarily follow my practice of always disambiguating taxonomy templates when multiple taxa share a name. However, the reason the template ended up without a disambiguation was that I hadn't changed |genus= to |taxon=. I did have "genus = Gaussia (plant)", but apparently when |taxon= isn't specified, the link to create the taxonomy template uses the page name, but drops any disambiguator. I'm not sure that is desirable; ambiguity with another taxon is the single biggest source of ambiguity in taxon names, and it wouldn't do any harm to include the disambiguator (and it might make the code simpler if the full page title is used by default in the template creation link, rather than stripping the disambiguator). Plantdrew (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: I don't quite understand your comment I hadn't changed genus to taxon. I did have "genus = Gaussia (plant)". What article were you editing? If I look at the history of Gaussia (plant), you do seem to have changed directly to |taxon=Gaussia. As far as I know, if you click the "fix" link in an Automatic taxobox, then:

• the value of |taxon= will be used if set
• if the |taxon= isn't set, then way back in the creation of the template, Smith609 decided to use the page name, stripped of any disambiguator, as the default value for this parameter.

Personally, I think the default was a mistake, and I now use the tracking category to 'fix' automated taxoboxes relying on the page name. But the default behaviour is deeply embedded in the system. The problem for me with your suggestion is that the disambiguator is often there because of uses other than as a taxon name, and there's then no reason to put the disambiguator in the taxonomy template name – which forces every Speciesbox to use the disambiguated name, unnecessarily. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I was using preview mode to display the link to create the template. Created the template in a new tab, saved it, and then noticed it didn't have the disambiguator. Went back the tab with the preview to double check that I had included the disambiguator and realized I hadn't changed genus to taxon; I made that change and saved. It's a rare set of circumstances (disambiguated page name+taxon unspecified), so I won't worry about it further. Plantdrew (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I feel an idiot! I always try to use preview mode, as you did, to avoid creating entries in the taxobox error-tracking categories, which don't always disappear when fixed. I should have thought of that. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Abelia

Sorry this article is factually incorrect. It is the sort of article that gives WP a bad name. Abelia is only recognised as a synonym of Linnaea by Christenhusz and PWO. The majority of botanists and secondary sources hold to the three species circumscription used on COL. I can provide numerous scientific papers that support my view. In addition, Abelia is maintained as a segregate by the RHS and other horticulture sources, and also by Flora of China. This sort of page and constant hatting are the reasons I do not contribute to WP preferring the more factual and scientific WS. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: it's always difficult to know in what detail to respond to other Wikipedia editors; I have a tendency to assume too little knowledge on the part of others (a generic fault of ex-teachers). So just some short responses to start:

• We should really be discussing this either at the article or at WT:PLANTS.
• What the Flora of China does is irrelevant; it's much too old. Similarly many RHS sources. Also the RHS, rightly in my view, and for very good reasons, takes a conservative view on changing names of horticulturally relevant plants, but it does, usually via the Plant Finder, eventually accept changes.
• So the issue is whether there are sources after the molecular phylogenetic studies that lead to the name changes that dispute the science involved.
• More generally, although we must always report all views in articles, for the names (and hence categorizaton) of articles we have to use a single self-consistent secondary source. Otherwise we end up with the problems I'm currently trying to correct for ferns: separate articles on the same taxon under different names (our articles are about taxa, not names); species that everyone agrees belong in the same genus, even if they differ as to which, written about under different generic names. The most up-to-date secondary source for Caprifoliaceae appears to be PoWO. If you think there's a better one, then let's have a discussion. (We don't use PoWO for ferns, for example.)

Peter coxhead (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article isn't factually incorrect. It states that Abelia was found to be non-monophyletic and that there was a proposal to subsume it into an enlarged Linnaea and raise Zabelia to genus. This is verifiable by sources, e.g. POWO accepts this approach. Now it seems that this approach is not uiniversal, with other sources retaining a revised Abelia, so there is room for discussion. However, the discussion has to be to decide what to include in the acticle to best represent current taxonomy, not to make a determination on favoured facts.

This seems an extreme case of lumpers and splitters at war. Christenhusz chooses to lump a number of genera into an enlarged genus Linnaea, while others split the same plant species among different subfamilies or even families. The Linnaea of the lumpers includes several families of the splitters.   Jts1882 | talk  08:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: exactly. (And precisely the same issue arises for ferns, involving some of the same personalities, but there we have had a discussion and agreed on the splitters' approach of PPG I, whereas PoWO takes the lumpers' approach.) I have little or no interest in Caprifoliaceae (other than as a gardener) so I'm happy to leave this to others to sort out. (1) Articles must state clearly all currently verifiable views. (2) There must also be a single self-consistent taxonomy, based on reliable secondary sources, used for article titles to avoid duplication and muddle. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Ferns have the advantage that PPG I goes down to genus level so provides one secondary source for the whole group. APG IV doesn't and you have to rely on a variety of conflicting resources to get the genera. There are also far more genera and more flux. The Angiosperm Phylogeny Website is probably the most useful resource, but its hard to get a listing of genera covering higher order taxa. Overall, though, land plants are pretty well served with general resources, land animals are even more fragmented.   Jts1882 | talk  09:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. For the families covered by WCSP, PoWO is fine in my experience (they use the same underlying database). But for other families, I understand that PoWO usually corresponds to WCSP's "in review" as yet, so isn't as good.

Species are often the real problem without something like PoWO. As for animals, I stick to spiders, partly from interest, but also because the Workd Spider Catalog is wonderful! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Totally agree as regards PoWO. It is not definitive, but getting better and looks good. WCSP is some 99.5% correct and updated regularly and errors are dealt with if they are pointed out. PoWO, like World Flora Online, is just a basic transfer of The Plant List (static since 2013), with upgrades as and when time permits I assume. Personally, I now use WCSP and COL, as my first port of call for plants, as they are better for species. Updates are very regular and the editors can be contacted for opinions. The problem with all secondary sources is when it comes to taxonomic opinions and this is highlighted by Linnaea, where COL and PoWO reflect opposite views. In respect to this genus both opinions are factually correct and therefore it is a major of preference and not science. Wikis, in my opinion, are more powerful, as they should not take sides and ideally must present both cases with equal weight and evidence, allowing the reader to make up their own mind. See my work on WS, as an example ( we are encouraged not to discuss, by the way). Incidentally, the recent work by Christenhusz and colleagues is increasingly being questioned by specialist botanists, for example, see Capparaceae. I think many workers are concerned about the The Global Flora project, which aims to set discussion in stone without proper consensus. Put two taxonomists in a room you get a heated row, put a dozen in the room and you may at least get consensus! Finally, editors on WP or WD can be just as opinionated as an average taxonomist and revert edits they do not like, in spite of the papers provided, often citing secondary sources over science. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Taxobox

Ah ok. Thanks! So if I make a taxobox for a genus and then in the speciesbox indicate genus = "___", then it will link to the information of the taxobox?Crawdaunt (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, the WP:Automated taxobox system is quite complicated, and ideally you should read about it at the link. Basically, you create a taxonomy template for a genus, and then {{Automatic taxobox}} with |taxon=GENUSNANE or {{Speciesbox}} with |taxon=BINOMIAL will pick up the taxonomy. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah ok. Great! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Cheers, Crawdaunt (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)