This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Looks like I could just move the page - hopefully that did not break anything! Allefant (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm a new Wikipedia user here who is also very interested in orchids. Pace (2023) is actually a very controversial paper, not being accepted by Hough and later being rebuffed by Catling and Kostiuk (2023). Whether S. sheviakii is a valid species has become an ongoing dispute, so it is by no means settled whether it is or is not a synonym of S. ×kapnosperia. I'd love to work with you to update the Wikipedia page if you're willing. Galearis2 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiranthestriloba made the changes to replace sheviakii with kapnosperia throughout the article. As far as I'm concerned we could have two separate articles, then maybe combine them later once it is sorted out botanically. I'm willing to help, both with making this article about sheviakii again, and with finding papers for a new article about kapnosperia (it had been on my list of articles to start anyway).
Let's see what @Spiranthestriloba thinks and then I guess whoever has time first can start editing. Allefant (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely sounds like S. sheviakii can be seen as a different species from S. ×kapnosperia for now. Allefant (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I went ahead and undid the page move and restored the last version of when it was about S. sheviakii. All content should be referenced to proper sources. What is missing now is some information or at least mention of kapnosperia.
I split the new section about kapnosperia into a new article Spiranthes × kapnosperia. So no edits should have been lost except the ones merely replacing the species names. In the kapnosperia article I removed the descriptions as they had been entirely sourced from papers talking about sheviakii which will be wrong when we consider them different (even though extremely closely related) species. For example the range is very different. Whoever gets to it should fill in information in the kapnosperia article, based on sources about kapnosperia only. Allefant (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My original intent was to update the S. ×kapnosperia page, but I think this works too. I can update the S. ×kapnosperia and S. sheviakii articles soon, just after I hear back from someone I reached out to tonight about Art. H.3 of the Shenzhen Code. I understand the arguments presented by Pace (2023) and Catling and Kostiuk (2023), but this particular situation does not seem to be very clearly addressed by The Code as it is now.
Interestingly, there are analogous situations to this which have been well-received. Helianthus deserticola, H. paradoxus, and H. anomalus are all species of hybrid origin which share the same progenitors, yet seem to be well-accepted. There is a similar situation with P. ×channelii and P. chapmanii as well, as both taxa have the same parent species: P. ciliaris and P. cristata.
There are a few orchid pictures which are misidentified on Wikipedia as well. I noticed that the photo for P. aquilonis is actually another species (P. elongata), but I think due to being a new user I was unable to change it for something else.
At any rate, thanks for getting back to me! The S. sheviakii case is no doubt an interesting one. Galearis2 (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm not a botanist myself, just interested in orchids - my understanding is the difference is between a (modern) hybrid with ongoing hybridization, growing close to both parent species, vs. a separate species that happens to have an ancient hybridization event somewhere in its evolution. In the former case it gets a name with the × symbol in it (and the clause Pace mentions only applies to this) - the other case is just a species like any other and in theory multiple species could result from ancient hybridization events with the same parents. For the Wikipedia articles it's important to keep in mind that all information needs to have references though, so the papers by Pace and Hough and Catling is likely all we can use. Allefant (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the Platanthera picture, generally I found an easy way to get misidentified pictures fixed (or also, find a picture for a rare orchid) is to tag this user on commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Orchi (Not that it's nice to just offload work, but it works... lol) Pictures on Wikipedia are not on Wikipedia itself but on commons, for the one you mention it's this here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Orchid_02_(9271690087).jpg I'm bad at American species myself so won't attempt it myself.
I don't know how restrictions for new users work, but if you don't want to fix the ID on the picture but just use a different one in the article, you should be able to do that (the new picture also has to be on commons though). I went ahead and replaced it with a random different "aquilonis" picture from commons, does it look like the correct species now? Allefant (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that I need to use existing references for Wikipedia articles, but I do appreciate the reminder. As far as the S. sheviakii situation goes, what you wrote sounds more-or-less like the position taken by Catling and Kostiuk (2023). In short, the other position is that S. sheviakii is little more than a hybrid between its parent species at a molecular level and argues that, per The Code, S. sheviakii must be a synonym because it has the same hybrid formula as the earlier name S. ×kapnosperia. I think the code is a bit ambiguous in this case, but alas, I doubt it will change anytime soon.
Thank you for looking into the P. aquilonis photo! While the new picture is closer (belonging to the same subgenus of Platanthera), it's actually P. purpurascens. Fortunately, I was able to figure out how to add images myself, so I just swapped it out for a photo of verifiable P. aquilonis. Apparently I just misunderstood how to change images. Galearis2 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}