Talk:Senecio squalidus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lead[edit]

Consider a rewrite of the lead section. Currently it stands as:

pretty wild flower and persistent garden thug from the daisy family Asteraceae and genus Senecio whose travels and discriminative tendencies regarding propagation make it a good subject for studies of the evolution of both flowering plants and the botanists who study them.

Problems:

  1. "Pretty" is subjective and typically things like "pretty" and "beautiful" are removed as POV material.
  2. "Persistent garden thug" - consider rewriting to more standard language - is it a weed, invasive species that outcompetes native flora? Then say so plainly. No need for colorful and ambiguous language.
  3. The genus name should be italicized.
  4. "...whose travels..." Currently this modifies "Senecio" when I suppose you're talking specifically about Senecio squalidus.
  5. "...evolution of... the botanists who study them" I know what you're getting at, but it's a bit awkward. Making it a bit more clear what you mean by that would be great.

Overall, though, another article full of quality information. And the placement and context of the quote you included is nice. (Though, and this is just a personal preference, I much prefer {{Quote box}} instead. It floats so the text can flow around it. As it is now, the prose is interrupted by the quote. Something to ponder, but I'm not asking you to change it.) Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done I worked on this list and I think that my work since then was edited.... -- carol (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for attending to that list and replying in detail on my talk page. I think it is definitely improved. My only concern remaining since your rewrite is the use of easter-egg links, where you use the piped link for things like "well drained rocky homeland". Links are supposed to be intuitive for the reasons laid out at WP:EGG. It could be a bit more comprehensive, too. From reading the lead, we know a lot about the species, but the lead should be able to stand alone as its own article. Things I couldn't answer if I just read the lead: What kind of plant is it? Forb, shrub, tree? Annual or perennial? WP:LEAD can help guide you in creating a more comprehensive lead. With the exception of the WP:EGG concern, the rest is rather nitpicky and really only necessary if you intend to develop the article further and set it up for good article status, which I think it could reach, given a bit more effort. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did what I could. 99% of my problem with EGGs is that I could not find one simple article (or article section) that described old volcano areas in general. Each area like this seems to have its own description and the only specific area that I needed for the article was Mount Etna -- it is all about places that resemble those regions -- growing conditions. Short of writing that article as well (which would be interesting but I have been trying to tackle Senecio and the article about the alkaloids (which can and should be greatly improved)). I would rather keep spitting out new species pages and I am also looking for information for an article about Paul Klee's Senecio (painting) which are all related to the article about the alkaloids. Even the geology and soil science pages that I looked at don't have general information which is specific to these regions. All I know is that they probably all grow potatoes, but I don't know why and don't want to until this alkaloid mess is settled -- which I am almost euphoric to write! I found a paper that I had been citing a citation of a citation to in the mid-nineties (in the middle of hauling volumes of plated food out to families and truckers). It is that kind of euphoria, one of the closure of a large "I read somewhere that they read somewhere that a paper was written that cited a paper and what they really said was...." open-end from previous studies.
Can I blame it on the soil scientists? -- carol (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Yes, blame the soil scientists. Absolutely. I've had similar problems with links like that. I typically choose to say it a little more plainly so the link makes a bit more sense and elaborate if needed or if I feel like it. --Rkitko (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not intend to write here that Paul Klee's Senecio (painting) was about the alkaloids. I think the painting had more to do with the genus and how it establishes itself without taking over until there is a problem, or about being an old man who had migrated from his native land -- I don't know enough about the history of the man to do more than guess though. Nothing to do with the alkaloids. -- carol (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin, native range and S. rupestris[edit]

This article could do with information regarding the hybrid origin of S. squalidus, which is one of the major points of interest for this species. There is evidence that the species arose in Oxford from introduced hybrid plants (James & Abbott 2005. Recent, allopatric, homoploid hybrid speciation: the origin of Senecio squalidus (Asteraceae) in the British Isles from a hybrid zone on Mount Etna, Sicily), which would mean that it isn't really native to anywhere, given the role of man in its origin.

The continental European plants should be considered S. rupestris, not S. squalidus. These were synonymised but the recent work suggests that this was incorrect (Abbott et al. 2002.). The range of S. squalidus, therefore, should be restricted to Britain and Ireland, although I'm not sure if it has spread elsewhere. --Graminophile (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a while since I wrote this. In that while, I started to write about S. flavus, it is still in the form of paste in a text file and I did use the save button for what I had written about S. glaucus. And it has been a while since I wrote that. It was not going to be easily possible to write an article for S. flavus without editing this one and also writing S. glaucus. I am curious about what criterion is used to establish when a species is native or not. The logic I see here is that if it is a species that was made since we had the idea of species, then it is never going to be a native. Only if we did not see it.... if it was there already when we started to notice things -- only then is it a native. Is this simplification of the definition correct? -- carol (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you missed the point. Native (as I see it) means a species that arrives/evolves in an area without the aid of man. Time has nothing to do with it. If the recent work (e.g. including that which I cited above) is correct then S. squalidus (the British plant) evolved in the UK from plants introduced from Sicily (which were hybrids, not true S. squalidus). S. squalidus isn't native to Sicily, even though its immediate ancestors were restricted to Mt. Etna. And it wouldn't have evolved at Oxford if the plants hadn't been brought there by man. The situation is similar for Spartina anglica and British Rhododendron ponticum

The geographic info. in the article seems to refer mainly to S. rupestris, which was synonymised with S. squalidus but is now considered distinct. S. squalidus in the strict sense is, I think, currently restricted to Britain and Ireland although I'm not certain of that. Currently S. rupestris redirects to S. squalidus, so I suggest it should have its own article and the relevant content moved from here. I don't know which, if either, of these taxa occurs in North America--Graminophile (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, if they were to learn that the Giant Senecio in Africa came from seeds of (just for arguments sake) one of the Italian natives, that would make them not native to Africa? It is the chicken or the egg argument, isn't it? Is the difference in how the seeds got there, like if a human being dropped them there or if a bird or rodent did? Me for example, I consider myself a native of United States and specifically the midwest, the third generation on one side and at least three on the other; that being said, the location of the later, the people who lived there considered my family to be not yet from where some of the third generation was living. While I was living there, to live there peacefully it involved agreeing with that -- but the feeling was not there for these terms I was agreeing with. Also, I have been looking at Alchemilla mollis and Alchemilla vulgaris, it is going to turn out that one gets more water than the other but they are the same plant. I can see this and even read this but I cannot cite it.
Meanwhile, I do need to return to these three or four articles -- I am also trying to divide the category commons:Category:Asteraceae into tidy tribes at the commons and the zone maps. Some of my response here is due to the fact that I am in the middle of a task which has less of the science of this elsewhere and more about tidy and complete. So, an apology for some of the not so cite worthy questions, metaphors and observations is due. -- carol (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This advice might/probably will help a lot for when I work through everything in the paste for S. flavus the migration of the genus and these species from Italy is also going to be part of my 'getting it' enough to make a logical and understandable article for them. When there has been conflicting information, I like to default to where the 'Flora of' that should be located closest to where the species is from, the African Flowering Plant Database for the African species is one example of this. And I am thinking that "Encycloweedia" is not the best source for a synonym, but it was not a bad place to get information (iirc). I enjoyed this article when I reread it for the 'readie-ness'; the story of how it got loose was funny and helped me to take the botanists from the past off from the pedestal which the word 'authority' and the scientific treatment of them put them on. Improvements to this article are needed, perhaps the history parts can be shuffled off into its own article; I was not able to work on Senecio flavus or Senecio glaucus without adding to this one. It does have its place in history though, as it was considered to be one of the three new species found since the 1800s and that too might change or has changed.
This species, its kind of fun, eh? They are cute or pretty, some of them grow in some extremely difficult situations. I laugh at how much I do not understand the science that got things to this point when I think of Dendrosenecio and that anyone would have considered them to be related to Senecio vulgaris at all; that being said from an American mutt (which I am not a dog but definately a subspecies or variety of some European seed that got here either honestly or accidentally or even aggressively planted) who looks almost nothing like my biological brother and with much different mating habits than either my mom or dad -- I like the Senecio, the more I learn about them :) -- carol (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Senecio is a great genus, but being so large it's always going to be quite subjective to draw the line between lumping/splitting into multiple genera. In the meantime though renaming species can just cause the situation to be more confused. Leaving the genus intact and shuffling species around with sections / subgenera at least has the benefit of keeping the binomial unchanged. It also emphasises the extent of the evolutionary radiation occurring within the group as a whole. But, why are you telling me about your mating habits? --Graminophile (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To go back to the species under discussion, I definitely think S. rupestris should have its own article and this one should focus only on the British plant. --Graminophile (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like good advice and fun, I like this species as just a resident of the UK. And, I take whatever opportunity that I am given, sometimes to the point of making the opportunity to stress that fact about the difference between me and my parents. These plants, the scientific description of them is about what they inherited from their parents (especially these particular species) and where they are has a lot of influence on determining who the parents are -- at least it did before we started to look at the dna strands. And isn't it impressive at how small the world had to get to enable a different way of determination of such things? It is to me. So, the genus of Senecio is almost as interesting as the species who looks at them, of which I am one of. -- carol (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checking into commons it seems likely that the image used in the taxobox is of "Senecio rupestris" (reading between the lines the photograph is from the former Yugoslavia). It would be preferable to have a photograph which is unambigously Seneecio squalidus. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a review of the review of the article[edit]

*"ragwort seed fly" (HTML). Invasive and Exotic Species. The Bugwood Network. November 09, 2004. Retrieved 2008-02-20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) This reference and the information was removed as a 'dud', however, it is a page that presents links to adults and minors of this insect which are eating from the this species of plant:

Do these references need to cited separately? And if not, perhaps a "How to review referenced material" guideline could be pointed at or authored.... -- carol (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, today it feels like the first time using these tags though.... -- carol (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Reference 11 is not peer-reviewed (at the time of writing) and is not the reference text for self-incompatibility in Senecio squalidus.

Someone with more experience please edit the references to include the following in place of or in addition to reference 11:

Hiscock SJ (2000a) Genetic control of self-incompatibility in Senecio squalidus L. (Asteraceae): a successful colonizing species. Heredity 85, 10-19.

Hiscock SJ (2000b) Self-incompatibility in Senecio squalidus L. (Asteraceae). Annals of Botany 85, 181-190.

Thanks, WikigeneticistWikigeneticist (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Senecio squalidus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Senecio squalidus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senecio_squalidus&oldid=1201736022"