WikiProject Plants

WikiProject Plants was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 17 December 2007.

Plants Project‑class

This page 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 Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives since 2011

54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 74, 75, 76

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

As of now, http://www.efloras.org/ is offline. This affects, among others, the online Flora of North America and the online Flora of China, both widely used in references. The Flora of North America seems to have moved to http://floranorthamerica.org, but with no clear mapping between old and new URLs for taxa. I can only find the Flora of China via http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/, from which you can get to PDFs for families, but apparently not individual taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least for references using FNA and template ((eFlora)) it looks fixable. The new urls use the taxon name, which are the third parameter in the template. So 'Quercus is at http://floranorthamerica.org/Quercus_alba, Quercus sect. Quercus at http://floranorthamerica.org/Quercus_sect._Quercus and Quercus alba http://floranorthamerica.org/Quercus_alba. I don't know how widely the template is used. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Botanical Garden websites (excluding Tropicos) have been down since March 12, with no estimate of a time to be fixed. floranorthamerica.org has existed alongside efloras.org for several years. I don't know what the long term plans are for efloras, but I expect it will be back up for the near term when the Mobot web server is fixed. Plantdrew (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know as there are over 8,000 uses and only about 800use the template.

Not all the Mobot websites are down. APweb is still live. Others give a message about scheduled maintenances (e.g. latindict). WFO is also live, although not sure if that is hosted by mobot.—  Jts1882 | talk  08:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

APweb was down when I tried to access it last week. It looks like pages with the domain mobot.org are now up, and those with missouribotanicalgarden.org are still down. Plantdrew (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The botanical dictionary one was down when I wrote that post, but is indeed up now, so they are making progress. Perhap eFlora will be fixed soon. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The eFloras are back online. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882: down right now. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it was down again at the weekend. This time it's giving an error page rather than not being found. Hopefully just ongoing issues with the mobot site updates. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And both Flora of North America and Flora of China are back online. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on a Draft:List of Penstemon species (almost finished) and I've run into the fact that Penstemon alluviorum is a synonym of Penstemon digitalis according to POWO, WFO, and Flora of North America. It contains essentially no information and unless there are objections I'm going to turn it into a redirect. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The latest version of the Weakley Flora (Flora of the South Eastern US(2024) still recognises Penstemon alluviorum, as do a number of recent (but older than FNA) regional floras. The Weakley Flora has 5 taxa in the Penstemon digitalis complex - POWO recognises 4 of them, but not Penstemon alluviorum, probably following FNA. It seems that it's not a settled question, but since Wikipedia's default sources consider it a synonym, and the article is a stub I'd go ahead and do the redirect. Maybe add a paragraph on the Penstemon digitalis complex at Penstemon digitalis. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should make exceptions to following POWO, like Penstemon grandiflorus, where pretty much every other source disagrees. If Weakley and FNA both listed Penstemon alluviorum I'd keep it and add more information to explain the controversy, but in this case I think redirect with more information at P. digitalis is the right move. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, It is FNA that POWO follows in synonymous Penstemon alluviorum. Weakley overall is much more of a splitter than FNA. Weepingraf (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have always blindly followed other editors of plant articles by "smalling" the authors of synonyms in taxoboxes (as for Lambertia formosa for example). I have searched for guidance but can only find examples such as here. Is describing the editors of synonyms in small font contrary to MOS:SMALLFONT as suggested at Styphelia prostrata? Gderrin (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In MOS:SCIENTIFIC, it says "In the article body, wrap the authority information in ((small)) or .... (This need not be done in a taxobox, which handles this automatically.)" I think this is referring to the "authority" parameter, which does "small" automatically. It does not say to "small" authorities listed in the "synonyms" parameter, but perhaps this should be made explicit (so that authorities are a consistent size between authority listings in both of these parameters? Esculenta (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bit Esculenta quotes was added by Peter coxhead on 11 October 2020. On 7 Februray 2021 SMcCandlish added a cross-reference to MOS:SMALLFONT pointing to MOS:SCIENTIFIC. So it's been 3 years with taxon authorities noted as an exception to SMALLFONT.

MOS:SMALLTEXT goes somewhere different than SMALLFONT (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Font_size vs. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Font_size. I am inclined to take the Accessibility section of MOS more seriously than most other sections. Yeah, smalling already smalled text seems like a potential accessibility issue. ((Small)) warns against using it in "infoboxes", as do the MOS sections already linked. What is an "infobox"? Taxoboxes were the first infoboxes (Wikipedia_talk:List_of_infoboxes/Archive_1#Poll:_new_name). Taxoboxes are not based on ((Infobox)), which displays text that is smaller than the prose content of the article. Taxoboxes display most text at the same size as the prose content of the article. Smalling authorities in a taxobox does not take them below an accessible size.

Taxoboxes are apparently MOS:INFOBOXEXCEPTIONS, as they include higher taxa not mentioned elsewhere in prose content. Infobox wars are a thing with an open (but likely soon closed) discussion at WP:RECINFOBOXRFC. There are some other "infoboxes" that aren't built off of ((Infobox)). I don't know of any that don't small their text, but taxoboxes are an obvious exception to the notion that "infoboxes" start off with small text. Plantdrew (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Esculenta that it should be noted that synonym authorities are also set in smaller font, which, as Plantdrew notes, has been agreed not to be against SMALLFONT.

One way of automatically setting synonym authorities in small text is to use ((Species list)) (or the equivalents for other ranks). An issue with synonym lists is that long lists are, rightly, often hidden, e.g. by using ((Hidden)), but this by default makes its contents smaller, so that double "smalling" gets applied to authorities, which is wrong. Using ((Species list)) with |hidden=yes avoids this. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now tried to clarify at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Scientific names. Please check. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Esculenta, Plantdrew and Peter coxhead for their contibutions here. I will use ((Species list)) with ((Hidden)) from now on. Gderrin (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have almost finished finding photographs for the Draft:List of Penstemon species and should be finished in about a week. Currently I have the list in a table with four columns: Scientific Name, Authority, Common Names, and Photo. I thought it might occasionally be useful to be able to sort the table by Authority, but if I put it into just three columns it may display better on mobile devices. Any opinions on what I should prioritize? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think those four columns should be fine on mobile. The images are small and the names will wrap if people have narrow screens. The sorting on different columns is a nice feature of wikipedia tables. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the authorities should go in the column with the binomials. Authorities don't really stand on their own (especially abbreviated ones; we'd never write "it was first described by L."). It seems unlikely that anybody would want to sort by authority, and if they did, they won't really get the results they probably would want since parenthetical authorities will sort separately from non-parenthetical authorities, and authorities following a parenthetical would sort all over the place. Although it's not very widely used (and I think isn't used at all for plants), ((Species table)) puts authorities in the same column as the binomial. Plantdrew (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Plantdrew for both reasons given. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MtBotany I do have a question. You made the column for the photos sortable. How do they sort? Uporządnicki (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AzseicsoK By the description of the photo. It is not hugely useful, but it will group the botanical illustrations together for example. And more useful for people attempting to find additional photos, group all the entries without photos. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this quote regarding an amazing donation of tens of thousands of photos depicting South African plants:

"Greetings from the Afrikaanse Wikipedia where I am a bureaucrat. Last year I negotiated a deal with Emeritus prof. A.E. van Wyk (renowned botanist and author of various books on Flora in South Africa) whereby he agreed to share his 60,000 photos with us (a lifetime's work). He has started loading those pictures onto Commons as User:SAPlants. I think it is going to take him the better part of three years to complete this. All the pictures are categorised according to their taxonomic names. He has already loaded close to 18,000 pictures. Most of the pictures covers Southern Africa flora. We, here on the Afrikaans Wikipedia, are working hard to create articles to accommodate these pictures! A good example is the family Aizoaceae with 100 genera already created! I invite you to get stuck into those pictures and articles..." Adam Harangozó (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! And I especially love the efforts going into creating articles to go with the photos. 17:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm trying to add refs to very old unsourced pages and came across Batales. I'm not familiar with best practice for refs in this area, so could someone here add some refs to improve it, please? JMWt (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Cronquist system for references for the orders of the Cronquist system. Batales refers to the 1981 version; in the bibliography at the bottom of Cronquist system one can find Cronquist's 1981 publication. (This is an instance where a primary source should be acceptable.) The problem is accessing the publication is probably hard, and adding the reference unseen questionable practice.

An accessible secondary source can be found here Lavateraguy (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find. It would be extremely useful to have that comparison table in Excel. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,if someone could add it to the page and some point, that would be great. JMWt (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A related issue is that Batidales redirects to Brassicales rather than Batales. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WP:PLANTS people! I was trying to copyedit Tacca integrifolia and saw that somebody previously changed the use of the common name "white batflower" to "white bat flower." I reverted them and looked for a source to prove either spelling, and I found a lot of shop listings that said the latter, but those aren't exactly reliable. Do any of you guys have access to a source that says otherwise? I also looked at Tacca and both terms were used in the same article. Thanks! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 13:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google search gives roughly the same number of results for batflower and bat flower. white bat flower has over 4 times as many results as white batflower. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Lavateraguy! :) —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 21:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more place to find sources for common names: archive.org

It is a far from a perfect library, but it is a good place to find sources you can access, read, and search for text strings that is free. In this case there is the same result as searching google. One book (three copies) that has "white batflower" and six that have "white bat flower". Plus some other common names.

It is no replacement for Wikipedia library access, but it is great for older floras and the occasional book explaining plant name origins. Second only to Biodiversity Heritage Library for scans of old botanical books. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @MtBotany! I actually do have access to TWL so that's perfect :). —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 00:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asparagusus One thing about searching the archive library. If you put in a binomial and get very few results from older books try putting it in without double quotes. Many books are formatted so that the genus and species name appear on different lines (especially the older ones) and so searching for "Tacca integrifolia" will miss many sources prior to about 1890. You'll get a lot of false positives as well, especially with a name like integrifolia, but sometimes it is worth it for a really deep search. Hand-book of Indian Flora (1864) (p.459) is an example. Tacca integrifolia only appears there as a synonym, but even in the name they're using as correct only appears as T. aspera under a heading further up the page for Tacca. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources in the taxonbar, both Mobot Plant Finder and RHS use "bat flower" and iNaturalist uses "white bat flower". Both "bat flower" and "batflower" seem in use as vernacular names. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:José Mariano de Conceição Vellozo#Requested move 28 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POWO has, since at least last September, massively lumped cultivated Citrus. Citrus × paradisi (grapefruit) and Citrus × sinensis (sweet orange), to pick two important ones, are treated as synonyms of Citrus × aurantium f. aurantium. The most recent source cited on POWO's page for the genus Citrus is Mabberly, 2022 (doi:10.7751/telopea15954), and he does list sinensis and paradisi as synonyms of aurantium. He advocates for recognizing ICNCP cultivar groups, rather than ICNafp binomials to handle the diversity of cultivated citrus. However, he basically fails to list any cultivar groups (I count 5 that he mentions).

Citrus taxonomy is of course a mess, and a cultivar group approach would be an excellent solution, if only somebody would publish a list of cultivar groups and the "species" names associated with the groups. Mabberly hasn't done that. POWO isn't designed to have records of cultivar groups (or any names governed by the ICNCP rather than the ICNafp); it's certainly their perogative to lump in the ICNafp framework, but I don't think Wikipedia should follow POWOs lumping. Hopefully eventually somebody will publish a cultivar group classification of Citrus.

@Abductive:, pinging you because I came across a discussion you were having with another editor that inspired me to post this (and Citrus taiwanica should not be moved to Citrus × aurantium f. aurantium, since the latter (per POWO) covers perhaps dozens of "species" with Wikipedia articles). Plantdrew (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you may of noticed, I did not move it. I was hoping to make the user aware that Citrus is, as you say, a mess and best left alone while we wait for clarification. Abductive (reasoning) 20:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got the opposite message, the message I got was that you wanted to redirect the article[1] not leave it alone while we wait for clarification. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is what we're looking for, but this paper from 2020 has a citrus industry perspective on groups of cultivars.^[1] 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with sticking with the status quo until some better work comes out. Just because POWO changed doesn't mean we have to change; I agree that their current solution feels inelegant. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus taxonomy mentions the alternative to cultivar groups - nothovarieties. But there doesn't appear to have been a consistent classification of citrus into nothovars either. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some sort of local consensus that POWO is gospel. That has never as far as I am aware been endorsed by the community, I would simply disregard POWO and use the existing notability guidelines. POWO is not part of wikipedia, they don't carry any special weight that other organizations of their caliber doesn't. They aren't special and they aren't gospel. They're just one point of view. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing here is to avoid creating more articles on Citrus for the time being. Abductive (reasoning) 20:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we do that? That is not in general how things are done on wikipedia (its the opposite), is there another local consensus which applies here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to create questionable articles, editors will question them. Please refrain from doing that. I suggest reading the guidance here in this Wikiproject. Abductive (reasoning) 00:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create a questionable article. What are you talking about? Note that this topic has a page on three other language wikis[2][3][4], so it would be hard to suggest that its in any way of questionable notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I said, going forward it would best to check PoWO before creating an article on a flowering plant. Presently PoWO lists 360,013 accepted species. This Wikiproject has only managed to create about 90,000 articles on plant species. That means that 75% of uncontroversial plant species don't have an article. Please consider directing your efforts towards these missing articles. Abductive (reasoning) 01:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to add such a layer of censorship to article creation, it would also be against the spirit of wikipedia to shy away from controversial topics. This is wikipedia not PoWO... Here PoWO carries the same weight as any other source of its caliber, no more and no less. I hope this is not going to be an issue with you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Consensus and WP:PSTS. Abductive (reasoning) 03:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one opposing the general consensus on notability, not me. I see no mention of PoWO at PSTS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PoWO is a secondary source. It is run by Rafaël Govaerts at Kew Gardens. This Wikiproject largely defers to it and (to a lesser degree) others like it, such as FNA and Flora of China, which were run by Peter H. Raven and Ihsan Ali Al-Shehbaz (both of whom recently retired, I think) out of the Missouri Botanical Garden. If you are going to make a case for creating an article that deviates from these sources, it would be best to run it by the guys here at this Wikproject first. Bring a source such as Taxon (journal) and explain why the creation would help build an encyclopedia. Abductive (reasoning) 20:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I bring it here and not to another one of the relevant WikiProjects (for example Food and Drink and Taiwan)? Why are you claiming this wikiroject to be superior to all other wikiprojects. I can't see any logic, guideline, or policy behind that, its just chauvinistic control freakery. It doesn't need to be brought to any wikiproject at all, wikiprojects don't get a sign off or veto on article creation. They're basically just clubhouses, they have no power or authority whatsoever. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a plant? Abductive (reasoning) 20:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its just as much food/drink, agricultural product, and Taiwanese as it is a plant. So why according to you does only this wikiproject get a say? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Here to build an encyclopedia and WP:CHALLENGE. Any editor can "challenge" a source. Abductive (reasoning) 23:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you can stop suggesting I read policy and guideline, I clearly have a stronger grasp on it than you do (which makes sense, I'm a wikipedia generalist and you are a plant specialist). You have not yet challenged any of the sources. You have challenged stand alone notability. I also asked you about wikiprojects and you responded with an answer about editors. Please answer the question about wikiprojects, I expect good faith from you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Different person with a point of view on POWO. I]t is not the gospel. It is, however, the best we've got for coverage of most of the world. I only ignore it when there is a strong local consensus I can point to as a reason to ignore POWO. For example Penstemon grandiflorus. Every North American source from Flora of North America to the USDA says it is the correct name and have for a long time. So I cite these other sources and note the disagreement. Likewise the fern boffins think POWO got it wrong and so we are using World Ferns as our list, currently. Is there an equally authoritative list for citruses that we could or should follow? If not we'd be loosing more chaos and confusion on our readers and editors. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for some of the history here. Chaos and confusion are the norm on wikipedia, most topics areas don't even try for any sort of overarching organization. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, POWO is not gospel. The consensus view of the project is that it is the best source for determining which plants get articles and for providing a consistent classification in the taxoboxes (with alternative views given in the article). However exceptions are made when there is consensus that a different classification better serves Wikipedia, e.g. the PPG via World Ferns, which was considered more suitable than a more lumped approach by POWO. Do we know what classification POWO is following now? In my reading the classification that made most sense to me was Ollitrault et al (2020),^[2] but I don't know what other resources use this. I think we should have a discussion on whether POWO is the best classification for citrus. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that the table in the horticultural classification^[1] mentioned above is essentially Table 4.1 from Ollitrault et al (2020).^[2] —  Jts1882 | talk  09:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POWO seems to be following (mostly) Mabberly 2022.^[3] Species recognized by POWO but not mentioned in Mabberly are Citrus assamensis, Citrus khasya, Citrus polytrifolia (described by Govaerts), Citrus pubinervia (described in 2021), and Citrus swinglei.

Species and hybrids recognized by Mabberly but not POWO are Citrus polyandra (synonym of Clymenia polyandra per POWO, and Mabberly mentions that name) and Citrus × otaitensis (Mabberly says this is a spelling correction from Citrus × taitensis, POWO regards C. otaitensis as superfluous and accepts C. taitensis).

Most of the hybrids recognized by Mabberly are treated as artificial hybrids by POWO and thus don't show up in the list of accepted species, but the names can be searched for and POWO doesn't treat them as synonyms (aside from C. otaitensis). POWO has three additional (not synonymized) artificial hybrids not mentioned by Mabberly:Citrus × rissoa, Citrus × webberi and Citrus × wilsonii.

POWO certainly has more synonyms listed across their species than Mabberly mentions. It's not clear to me where POWO is getting Citrus × aurantium f. aurantium and Citrus × aurantium f. deliciosa from (it's not Mabberly). Plantdrew (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus × wilsonii is Shangjuan if I am not mistaken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now created a redirect for Citrus × wilsonii. Plantdrew (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at WP:PLANTS (here) is that all plant species are notable. That changes the problem from determining whether a species is notable to determining whether the species is valid. POWO is the best single source for seed plants, so for consistency, and to avoid engaging in WP:SYN the consensus is to follow POWO in the absence of good reason to disagree (and to get them to change when we find they've got the nomenclature wrong).

However infraspecific taxa are not necessarily non-notable, especially in horticulturally and agriculturally important species. It seems to me that Citrus taiwanica is notable (though perhaps at the lower end of notability compared to many other citrus); the problem is what is the "correct" name for the article.

I also wonder whether there's case for recognising apomictic species in Citrus. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty clear that at the very least it should be Citrus × taiwanica. Abductive (reasoning) 23:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If considered a hybridogenous species Citrus taiwanica is a valid name. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your position? That does not seem to be clear to your fellow editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed today that Securigera is listed as a synonym of Coronilla in both POWO and WFO. Is there any reason that the species should not be moved? I also asked over at Talk:Securigera in case anyone is watching that page and not this one. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Securigera. Plantdrew (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]