Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 → Archive 50

A little help with identification

Hello, does anyone have any good recommendations on how to identify a particular flower? In particular, I want to upload this picture which I took (assuming the article does not have a better one), but I don't know what it's a picture of! I also have literally hundreds of other flowers sitting on my hard drive, but I figured we'll start one at a time. I'm not very good with plants (or anything biology, for that matter). I just like to take pictures. Is there a fairly easy-to-use guide on how to identify this plant, or does anyone have an idea what it is? Thanks for any insight. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As some advice which may help, the pictures are almost exclusively (including the above picture) from the Washington/Oregon border, around Hood River, OR. The images were taken in the vicinity of July to August (with the above picture being taken on the 28th 14th of June. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
You may have some difficulty getting it identified; it is a damned yellow composite. Hesperian 04:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
What did the rest of the plant look like? It reminds me of a Wyethia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this is one of the flowers that I literally had to get on my hands and knees to take the shot, so it's pretty small. Let me see if I took any other shots that might be able to help with identification. If not, I'll be back in the area starting around early June and will certainly go back to the spot that I took it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok I found some additional pictures of that flower (warning: the files I'm about to link are very large to maintain quality). It seems I was completely wrong about the "hands and knees" thing (sorry I took a lot of pictures that day). It looks like (in the places took it) the flower grows from about 1-3 feet. It also has leaves and a hairy stem. this picture has pretty good detail of the leaf and stem formation. this picture shows the flowers in the distance, which gives a good estimate of its height. this picture is another shot from a bit further back that shows about where the leaves are. Does that get us any closer? Please note the petals in these pictures are heavily damaged due to the severe wind at the height these are taken, so take the contents with a grain of salt. Thanks again for any assistance! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure, but it looks a bit like a species of Balsamorhiza based on this. I think I can spot a deltoid basal leaf in the longshot (Uncropped 0137).Melburnian (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Based on the (non-expert) research I've done based on Melburnian's advice, Balsamorhiza deltoidea seems to be a very close match, both by plant characteristics and typical habitat. Anyone concur? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Additional info: this page seems to corroborate the above evidence. This picture was in fact taken at Dog Mountain. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Did it look like this?--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The only thing that worries me is I don't remember the petals being broken into clumps like that, but then again I didn't have a great view of the flower; I considered any irregularity to be damage from the wind, not a characteristic. I could easily have been wrong about that. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm also concerned that the ray flowers are distinctly three-lobed in the photo from CSU Chico, but not in your photo. Balsamorhiza seems likely (it's related to Wyethia, my first guess), but unless B. deltoidea is really variable, I'd also check out other species in the genus.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
What about Balsamorhiza sagittata? In addition to the non-clustering (please pardon my lack of proper terminology) the leaves appear to be in a shape more like the shots I showed above. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you planning on uploading these images to Commons? Once they are uploaded you can put thumbnails of them on pages like this, which makes attracting people to identify them much easier. Kaldari (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I was planning on uploading them to Commons once I figure out what they are. I didn't want to leave a useless description. But I guess I could ignore that. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Marchantiophyta

Please comment on the edit war situation over the introduction to the article. The central issue is whether the class name Hepaticae can/should be among the bolded items listed in the article summary at the top of the page, versus simply being discussed in the body of the article in an appropriate section. User Nadiatalent believes that the name must be present in the article summary. I believe that there complications that make doing so more detrimental than beneficial. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ranunculus aconitifolius

I started Ranunculus aconitifolius, but I am not sure that I have followed the correct style. I would be grateful if another editor could check the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks okay. I tweaked the taxobox a bit. Hesperian 05:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter
An overview
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class plant articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot (owner • talk) 00:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

type designation

I was reading name-bearing type, trying to figure out the differences between a zoological name-bearing type and a botanical "nomenclatural type". As far as I can tell, the difference only shows up for groups above species (in both case the term exist to encompass holo-, lecto-, neotypes... but not paratypes—I'm not clear whether a syntype can be nomenclatural/name-bearing). In the ICZN, the type of a genus or family is not a specimen, but a "name" or "species concept". That is, the ICZN refers specifically to the species or genus being the type, whereas the ICBN specifically states the type of supraspecific ranks is a specimen, but the name of the species/genus is used by convenience. In fact this is so widespread that no author ever talk about the specimen when designating a genus type.

So basically my question is: if an author designates as type species (more accurately lectotype, but I've never seen the different types used when referring to genera) for an existing genus one that happens to have no previously designated nomenclatural type, that designation would be technically invalid under the code, right? Does anybody knows of situations having to do with this? (I know it is much more typical to have problems with designating a type species that will not be nomenclaturally inconvenient, e.g. because all the original species have been designated type species for segregate genera in the meantime.) Circéus (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If I understand your question correctly, then yes. Again if I understood your question, then the classic example among bryologists is the Anthoceros debacle. The genus under Linnaeus had three species, but for the longest time had no designated type. Stephani split out part of the genus into Aspiromitus, but the remainder left in Anthoceros included heterogeneous membership, some of which should have been split into the new genus. Sttill no type for Anthoceros, though, at that point. Proskauer (1948 ff.) reworked the entire classification of hornworts, and designated a type for Phaeoceros (=Schuster's Anthoceros) in 1951, and set the type for Anthoceros (=Schuster's Aspiromitus) at the same time. Unfortunately, Schuster published his magnum opus in disagreement of Proskauer's work, and used the incorrect names for the two genera, citing the "law of residues" and Stephani's work, but failing to consider that the type designations on which this depended were published after Proskauer's 1951 paper.
I still get dizzy thinking about it, but it means that hornwort nomenclature has been (and will probably continue to be) a mess. Not least because additional careful work in the past 15 years has yielded many new, quite solid, segregate genera. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't get quite exactly what your account means since you don't specify when talking about type whether these are species type (aka nomenclatural type specimens) or type species (which might or might already have a designated type). Let's see:
  • Linnaeus creates Anthoceros, with three species
  • Stephani separates Aspiromitus, including at least one of the original species.
  • 1948 1951: Proskauer defines Phaeoceros and Anthoceros with type species
    • I assume his Anthoceros type is one of the Linnaean species
  • At some point between 1948 and 1951 1948 and 1992, type specimens are selected for the type species chosen by Proskauer
  • 1951 1992: Schuster applies the name Antheroceros to Proskauer's concept of Phaeoceros and Aspiromitus to the latter's Anthoceros, but without changing the types assigned by Proskauer.
  • Collective hair pulling ensues when people notice the problem.
As an aside, there is an issue as to whether syntypes can be nomenclatural types, since there are two distinct types of syntypes:
  1. If no type was designated at all, all protologue specimens are syntypes1 and possible choice for lectotypification.
  2. If a combination of specimens is the type, these specimens are syntypes2 and the first choice for lectotypification. All other specimens are paratypes.
In my opinion this is a serious flaw in the ICBN, since it prevents syntypes2 from being nomenclatural types (art. 8.1: only holotype, lectotype or neotype can), when there is no reason for them not to be unless they are demonstrably not conspecific. Circéus (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can't find my copies of Proskauer's papers (clarification: I can't find the copies I own of papers written by Proskauer; I can find the copies of papers formerly owned by Proskauer), so I can't tell you in more detail or with more certainty the nature of the problem. I'm reasonably certain the problem was a syntype1 problem for the genus at least. I want to say (but am not certain) that there was an additional issue in identifying the physical type for the species as well, but I may be confusing that issue with the one for Marchantia polymorpha, which had another serious issue in typification. The Marchantia situation may be closer to the problem you initially described. As I recall, M. polymorpha had three specimen syntypes, but one didn't actually belong to the same species. Helen Bischler's multi-volume monograph published in the series Bryophytorum Bibliotheca (1984, 1989, ff.) would be the place to look for that information, but alas I do not have access to those.
In any case your summary is mostly correct, except that 1951 was the year Proskauer published, and 1992 was the year Schuster published his magnum opus. In the years in-between, the Europeans were still following Stephani's work and Schljakov (I think) designated types independently of Proskauer (but after him by about a year), and Schuster followed Schljakov. So, the hair-pulling is still underway in some places. This sort of problem is not at all uncommon among liverworts and hornworts, since a big push in naming new genera happened about a century ago with three major works all being published about the same time, and thus most major liverwort genera were known by three different names, depending on what publication happened to be used by a particular bryologist. Even the major bryophyte herbaria have taxa filed under really weird generic names. And, since bryophyte herbaria tend to be sorted alphabetically by genus, rather than in family groups like vascular collections, looking for material means knowing lots of creative synonyms or carrying around a copy of Grolle's index. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, you mean it was just a case of people disagreeing on which typification to follow among several, whose authors might or might not be aware of the others'. That's very common in vascular plants too (I read an account earlier this week about just such a case, typically they disagree whether a lectotype is or is not in disagreement with the protologue or is nomenclaturally inconvenient).
What I meant is a case where somebody designated a type genus or species, but because the author did not bother to check, it turned out there was no nomenclatural type specimen designated previously for the species or genus selected, which in theory makes that typification of the higher group invalid (because the type must be a specimen and no holo-, lecto- or neotype was actually designated).
As to your case, I found a summary in conservation proposal 1596 (Stotler and Crandall-Stotler, JSTOR 3647470) and its response (Zijlstra, JSTOR 25065388). I would have to get my hand on the code edition valid from pre-1981 to understand what the "law of residue" is, but since the code is retroactive, and it's obvious to me that if the types of Aspiromitus (A. husnotii) and Anthoceros (A. punctatus) are conspecific (which is the nexus of the problem as I understand it), then Aspiromitus (1914) is an heterotypic synonym of Anthoceros (1753). (Q.E.D.? in any case it seems simple enough to me.)
Honestly, what I don't get is Schuster's logic as summarized by Stotler and Crandall-Stotler that since Proskauer later had to split Anthoceros (thus having to separate one of the two original species left, one of which was his chosen type species), his previous designation is somehow invalid. I also don't see where Aspiromitus "must be used for one of the two elements originally included in Anthoceros" (since Stephani's Aspiromitus husnotii was not described as an Anthoceros). Zijlstra instead puts it as Schuster considering that since Aspiromitus husnotii is conspecific with the type for Anthoceros (both were, it must be mentioned, selected by Proskauer in the same publication.), A. punctatus somehow becomes unavailable for type designation. This is nonsense under the Vienna code as far as I can tell (they do that all the time with unused name without original material to prevent them gaining priority), and is only relevant if one specifically wishes to maintain Aspiromitus as a valid name (since following Proskauer makes it synonymous with Anthoceros, as noted above).
Given that BOTH type designations for Aspiromitus and Anthoceros were likely mechanical (I don't have online access to the paper to check), one would think the simplest solution for Schuster would have been to change the Aspiromitus designation if he was unhappy with the conspecificity! He looks like he was making unnecessary work for himself...
Am I making sense? (FWIW, they figured other valid pre-Schuster designations of A. punctatus as type and all was well)Circéus (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and Schljakov had taken care of the Aspiromitus designation problem, but did it after Proskauer's paper. So, the type for Anthoceros was set, and included within its circumscription the material designated for genus Aspiromitus by Stephani. The obviously different species in the Linnaean triad was dubbed Phaeoceros laevis, on account of its yellow spores (which works as a fairly good field character to distinguish the two major genera in northern temperate regions, as long as you don't count Sphaerosporoceros. Schuster's logic won't make sense, because it's wrong. The "law of residues" was article 52, and dealt with cases such as those where a name published by Linnaeus had to be dealt with. Schuster held that, since A. husnotii was designated type for Aspiromitus, and since it was synonymized in 1953 with A. punctatus, the remaining species in the original Linnaean genus retains the Linnaean generic name. He presents quite a number of cases where the name Aspiromitus was "accepted" by authors to support his case, but ironically points out how each one of them was confused about the limits of the genus. A large number of otherwise competent bryologists were misled by Schuster's work, and so there are quite a few papers and books published between 1992 and today with incorrect names.
As I say, I think the Marchantia situation might be closer to what you were originally discussing. The genus, family, order, etc. were all published without a physical type designated for the species, IIRC. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
"Schuster's logic won't make sense, because it's wrong." Thank you for stating that. For a second there I thought this was one of those situation where applying the code is ridiculously complicated or leads to counterintuitive results. Circéus (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Identifying flowers

What flower is this? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 00:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide geographic information? Is this wild or planted, and where was it photographed? It's definitely in the Asparagales, but I'm not completely certain which family or genus. A narrowed geographic search would help, especially if I can be certain it's not South African or Australian. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks quite a bit like a Scilla, perhaps Scilla sibirica? Widely planted in large groups, just flowered here in Ohio a couple weeks ago. The inflorescence has more flowers than I'm used to seeing on those around here, so it may be a different species. Rkitko (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The geographic location is in Stafford UK. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 00:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Rkitko, it looks somewhat like Scilla sibirica but this has more flowers than is usual for that species. Melburnian (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
So it's definiately not a Bluebell? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
It's definitely not the Common Bluebell which has two blue bracts at the base of each flower. Melburnian (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
All of the Hyacinthoides have large bracts. I can't identify any bracts in your photo. Also, the pedicel in your photo is a nice red to purple color, which the Hyacinthoides lack. (Hyacinthoides is sometimes included in the genus Scilla.) I still think it's some kind of Scilla, but even Scilla siberica has small bracts. Might you have a better photo of an individual flower? --Rkitko (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Umm no. I just though oo pretty flower and snap. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The flowers are too dark for Puschkinia, but is there any reason for not considering Chionodoxa? (I've been through my photographs, and the seven Scillae in there all have broader leaves than this.) Lavateraguy (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
It could be a Scilla or Chionodoxa, but from what I've been able to find, the species and generic concepts are fuzzy in and between those genera and names used in horticulture are seemingly random. It may not be possible to get a proper ID. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
So what should be the "proper" name for this img? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps something like Flowering plant (Hyacinthaceae) Stafford UK.jpg --Melburnian (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
For more info, this was a wild flower. So the exact species is undetermined? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Probably not wild. It's not one of the species of Hyacinthaceae native to Britain. What context did you find it in? Lavateraguy (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks a bit like a mulched garden bed situation, it could be naturalised though. Melburnian (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
If you look carefully at the very right-most flower (e.g. download the full-sized image and sharpen it), you'll see the white broad filament bases typical of Chionodoxa – typical that is for those who distinguish this genus from Scilla. I suspect it's Chionodoxa siehei, as this self-seeds freely in the English Midlands where the picture was taken. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Cabbage tree (New Zealand)

I have proposed on Talk:Cabbage tree (New Zealand) that this article should be moved to the scienctific name, Cordyline australis. There are actually five native NZ species of Cordyline which have Cabbage tree as part of their common names, and the others are all under their binomials, although this one is the best known. But my main reason for raising this here is that I am nearly finished a rewrite and expansion of the article and wouldn't mind some input and advice from people interested in plants :) Kahuroa (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Unknown flowers

To put the flowers into their better category, a better identification of these flowers are needed. I tried to take them as close as possible. Thanks! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 04:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Unknown flower #1
    Unknown flower #1
  • Unknown flower #2
    Unknown flower #2
Both appear to be Primula cultivars. Melburnian (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
To be more precise they are polyanthus ((Primula ×polyantha hort.), which are hybrids including Primula ×tommasinii (veris × vulgaris), Primula ×pruhoniciana (×tommasinii × juliae). This particular form is the common polyanthus of municipal bedding schemes. It might be the seed strain Primula 'Pacific Giant'. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Orchids

Are these orchids? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, they're petunias. First Light (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Plants in culture, religion, mythology

Should articles about plants in culture, religion and mythology, such as Tree worship, World Tree or Yggdrasil, be within the scope of this WikiProject? These are often under different WikiPRojects - for example Tree worship is under WikiProject Religion and Yggdrasil is under WikiProject_Mythology and WikiProject Norse history and culture. Perhaps the scope of our WikiProject should be extended to take all articles related to plants under its umbrella. AshLin (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. Those pages are focussed on human social practices and folklore that happen to include plants, rather than articles about plants themselves. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

cleanup needed

A newbie (User:219.74.207.106) has made a bit of a mess with Annona scleroderma and Annona crassiflora, etc. I've made a start at cleaning up the former, but I haven't the time to deal with the rest at the moment. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed your link. Hope you don't mind. Guettarda (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Another IP (User_talk:121.7.241.84), but possibly the same user, has been creating pages as talk pages, and linking the Passiflora article to these. (Some have already been moved to the right place - the new articles seem on first glance to be reasonable stubs.) Lavateraguy (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This IP, apart adding articles as talk pages and linking to them from main space, has been adding images not always sticking to the right taxon, changing taxoboxes to use vernacular names (does WP Plants have a policy on this), and introducing other errors - in the case of recent edits to Feijoa and Carica apparently just making stuff up. My guess is that this is a school account, and some pupils are making constructive edits, some don't understand what they're editing, and some are just making stuff up. Could an admin look into this please. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Flower id

Hi, Could anybody help in identifying the species or cultivar of this picture? It was found growing in the wild on a mountain in East Africa --Muhammad(talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what it is, other than a composite (probably). However for many plants one also needs to see leaves, growth habit, size, habitat. If it is a difficult plant to identify as many composites are, then you may need many pics, including close ups of flowers, fruit, and more. This could all be difficult to get on one visit of course. Imc (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sisymbrium irio photo

hi ! persian wiki have some new picture a but Sisymbrium irio. u can use of this http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AE%D8%A7%DA%A9%D8%B4%DB%8C%D8%B1 User talk:78.38.246.66|talk]]) 19:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.246.70 (talk)

Biogeographical maps

Are there any standards for plant range maps? Any conventional colours? I don't want to make too many and have to change'm all.

I asked that question at [Talk:WikiProject_Maps]. User:Yug replied saying well, not really, and he says they need some input: 'A biologist is still needed to tell us if better colors and better categorization are in use within the real-life biologist community's books.' Any thoughts from this project? (I will also copy this the Biology wikiproject) Kahuroa (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Does sound like we need to coordinate with the map project people and come up with some standard colours or plants and animals though. I have started doing a few New Zealand plant range maps, I am using green for the range. I also have done one ecotype distribution map, which has a grey background and about 8 other colours. It looks a bit "bright" so that has sparked my query, and it's easy enough to change the colours in the photoshop psd file and I probably need to tidy it up a bit anyway before it goes live on the page. Kahuroa (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Distribution maps. Kaldari (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussion is centering on WikiProject Maps#Biogeographical maps. Kahuroa (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Water lily ID

Any ideas? I assume the genus is Nymphaea. It's from a botanical garden, so no idea on native region. Kaldari (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There are around 1900 named Nymphaea cultivars. The best bet for ID would be to contact the Huntsville Botanical Garden. Melburnian (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ornithidium donaldeedodii

I'm running up against my limitations in understanding with this newly named orchid, Ornithidium donaldeedodii. Can anyone help? The genus name redirects to another related genus, and I don't know why. It makes me doubt whether I got the information in the taxobox correct. Also, how "official" is the naming? Does it have to get more widely accepted, or is its first publishing in Lankesteriana enough to make it WP article-worthy? The article is technically long enough for a DYK, though just barely, and could use some more fluffing up. Thanks, First Light (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The taxonomy of orchids is a mess, and generic subdivions in the family are in what seems like constant shift. The genus is probably correct, but our taxonomy is likely not quite up to date. Circéus (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll see what I can track down, but it really might be worth sending an email to Ackerman. Guettarda (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - The Lankesteriana article might be referring to this article for the changes: Blanco, M.A., G. Carnevali, W. Mark Whitten, R.B. Singer, S. Koehler, N.H. Williams, I. Ojeda, K.M. Neubig, & L. Endara. 2007. Generic realignments in Maxillariinae (Orchidaceae). Lankesteriana 7: 515-537. I just added the article to the DYK suggestions, before seeing your response. A free photo would be nice also, but I couldn't find one. First Light (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that article[1] proposes "resurrection of the genera Camaridium, Heterotaxis, and Ornithidium" among many other changes. First Light (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive45&oldid=1137368917"