Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

WikiProject Plants

 Main page Talk Taxon template Botanist template Resources Events Requests New articles Index 

Please move synonymous Eulophia species to Oeceoclades

Hello. I have noticed several Eulophia species in this page are redirects (due to synonymy) to Oeceoclades species. I believe these should be moved (or removed if they’re already listed) to here. Γ+2 (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@GammaPlus2: I took care of 12 such cases on the above-linked pages. If I missed any, please feel free to continue removing them. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I've separated out the remaining species placed in Oeceoclades and placed them in a separate section, but this probably needs some expert attention to decide whether to deviate from the POWO treatment here. Choess (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Plantae meaning

Hello. For what meaning kingdom Plantae be used in the wiki? For Viridiplantae, Embryophyta or Archaeplastida? I personally support that it used for Viridiplantae, since it's the most popular in the literature and also been generally used in the pages here. But we can't create a new definition of Plantae that excludes Prasinodermophyta but includes other Viridiplantae. See 1. Also pinging other editors @Snoteleks and @Plantdrew here. Honestly, can't understand what "worse source" is as said in 2. Jako96 (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

An term like that is always going to be contested. The article's §Definition explains that there are different meanings. Wikipedia doesn't need to take a firm taxonomic stance on what is and isn't a plant beyond acknowledging that the scientific literature often considers green and red algae not included. That's enough depth for an article on what is effectively a colloquial term; more detail can be reserved for articles like that on Viridiplantae. If you find that there is overwhelming scientific literature to support promoting Viridiplantae as the "gold standard" of what counts as a plant, I think it's sufficient to add a couple more paragraphs on how and why the guys and gals in lab coats think that. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. The thing is, one meaning should be taken, for example charophytes and chlorophytes being included in it but not prasinodermatophytes is not okay. But so far it seems like the Embryophyta usage is more consensual here in Wikipedia, so if I'll touch those templates again, I'll assign algae to Viridiplantae and leave Plantae for Embryophyta instead. Jako96 (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

The plant article has discussed all 3 circumscriptions for years. Embryophytes is the circumscription that I think is most familiar to the general public.

The long term status quo in taxoboxes (going back to when manual taxoboxes were the standard) was that embryophytes displayed Plantae as a kingom, green algae displayed Viridiplantae, and red algae displayed Archaeplastida. I don't recall manual taxoboxes being very consistent in what rank or non-rank was used for Viridiplantae and Archaeplastida; Plantae was not typically displayed for algae.

That changed when Jako96 requested that Embryophytes being always displayed (Template_talk:Taxonomy/Embryophytes/Plantae#Template-protected_edit_request_on_24_May_2026) without consulting anybody else. That effectively made Viridiplantae the definition of Plantae in embryophyte articles (if embryophyte species are displaying Embryophytes as something below Plantae, Plantae must be something above Embryophytes; I guess an alternative would be to to define Plantae as Streptophyta rather than Viridiplantae, but I don't believe that is a circumscription of Plantae that anybody really uses).

Revert back to the status quo of not having Embryophytes as always displayed. Plantdrew (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Plantdrew. There simply is not a clear consensus as to the meaning of the term 'Plantae' and hence 'plant'. The highly influential International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICNafp) never explicitly says what it means by "plants", merely referring to "organisms traditionally treated as algae, fungi, or plants", but the exclusion of algae points to embryophytes as the meaning, so this should not be shown above Plantae in taxoboxes for organisms the ICNafp treats as plants. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Embryophyta is a better option than Streptophyta. Jako96 (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Ditto what the other editors said. But I am curious, what made you say we can't create a new definition of Plantae that excludes Prasinodermophyta but includes other Viridiplantae? Who is trying to do that? — Snoteleks (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

When sources mention Plantae, I didn't see them exclude Prasinodermophyta/Prasinodermatophyta. But sure, I guess this is also somewhat usable, as the phylum's description didn't use Plantae. Obviously, Embryophyta usage is better and seems more consensual here, so that should be implemented now I think. Jako96 (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't really cognizant of Template:Taxonomy/Polysporangiophytes/Plantae where Jako96 has made an edit request to change the parent from Embryophytes to Plantae. Template:Taxonomy/Embryophytes/Plantae and Template:Taxonomy/Embryophytes were brought up at ToL talk. I'm still not sure that both of the templates are needed, but I realized Embryophytes/Plantae was doing two things:

1) linking fossil embryophytes that are not bryophyte or tracheophytes to Embryophytes (see the parent of Template:Taxonomy/Grisellatheca and Template:Taxonomy/Catenalis prior to Jako's edits today as well as Template:Taxonomy/Horneophytopsida).

2) providing means to navigate upwards at least one article at a time from any lower taxon to eventually get up from Angiosperms towards Embryophytes and eventually to Eukaryota.

This does mean that in the Angiosperms article (or the high level articles for gymnosperms, pteridophytes, bryophytes and any fossil embryophytes that don't fall into any of these), with display parents set high enough, Embryophytes will show up as a clade below kingdom Plantae (again carrying the implication that Plantae is a broader circumscription than Embryophytes).

I don't think that is really a problem, as it only shows both Plantae and Embryophytes in a few articles, and I do think it is desirable to be able to use the taxobox to navigate from Angiosperm to Embryophyte without having Embryophyte displaying at species level articles (this is essentially the same issue in allowing navigation upwards from Animalia/Fungi/Plantae to Eukaryota while not displaying Eukaryota ins animal/fungus/plant species articles). I expect Jako96 may disagree with showing both Plantae and Embryophytes in a few articles as not being a problem.

The alternatives I can envision are not allowing Embryophytes and Plantae ever to displayed together in a single taxobox (at which point we might as well merge Embryophytes to Plantae) or using pipes to link to different circumscriptions of Plantae in taxonomy templates (Embrophytes|Plantae, Viridaeplantae|Plantae, Archaeplastida|Plantae). Another would be drastically restructuring the articles we have (merge embryophytes/viridplantae/archaeplastida to plants; retain articles for the different circumscriptions and turn plant into a dab page). I don't think any ofthese alternative would be an improvement. Plantdrew (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I reverted some of my edits and made a new edit request according to your opposition (btw, when Plantae was equal to Viridiplantae, Viridiplantae's parent wasn't shown to be Plantae, it was rather Archaeplastida). Let's wait for other editors to answer (I'd still support to make Plantae equal to Viridiplantae, if there would be consensus). As a note, Plantae for Embryophyta is traditional and more common on text books, that's why everyone remembers that usage. But to my experience from the recent professional scholarly literature, green algae are also included in Plantae and plants, generally. But we have to implement current editorial consensus, which seems to be Embryophyta and solve the conflicting things right now. Jako96 (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The Plant article says By the definition used in this article, plants form the clade Viridiplantae (green plants) .... My understanding is that the /Plantae series of taxonomy templates was set so the taxobox was consistent with that definition where Viridiplantae was a synonym and to skip the taxa above kingdom. So {{Taxonomy/Embryophytes/Plantae}} should have Plantae as the parent and skip taxa above kingdom in the taxobox. Then {{Taxonomy/Embryophytes}} would have Viridiplantae as parent so a fuller hierarchy is used.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:11, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

The template {{Taxonomy/Polysporangiophytes/Plantae}} is part of the /Plantae series so should have {{Taxonomy/Embryophytes/Plantae}} as its parent. The question is whether the taxobox at Polysporangiophytes uses |taxon=Polysporangiophytes/Plantae (stopping at Kingdom Plantae) or |taxon=Polysporangiophytes (which should show Viridiplantae and Archaeplastida). Currently {{Taxonomy/Polysporangiophytes}} produces the same as the /Plantae version because /Plantae {{Taxonomy/Embryophytes/Plantae}} and {{Taxonomy/Embryophytes}} are the same. I think the latter should have Viridiplantae as the parent while a /Plantae version exists.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:40, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

To keep what I understand as the original intent of /Plantae series of taxonomy templates, {{Taxonomy/Embryophytes}} should have parent Phragmoplastophyta and {{Taxonomy/Embryophytes/Plantae}} should have parent Plantae (instead of the same as parameter). This was the arrangement when Peter coxhead created {{Taxonomy/Embryophytes/Plantae}} with this edit. At the time, {{Taxonomy/Embryophytes}} had parent Phragmoplastophyta (see here).

If this arrangement is no longer wanted, the taxonomy templates should be edited as a group to reflect a consensus, not done individually to reflect what an editor thinks should appear on a particular page. The edit requests on the taxonomy templates often get dealt with by Admin with little or no knowledge of the taxonomy template system. We really need a way to ensure the edit requests get dealt with on the relevant project pages.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:31, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Where do you think Prasinodermophyta should be assigned? It does belong to Viridiplantae, if we are making Plantae syn. with Viridiplantae, then it should be in Plantae per this source (check second page in PDF, Viridiplantae: "monophyletic group of organisms commonly known as green plants, the green lineage, or Plantae; includes green algae and terrestrial plants as well as seagrasses"). I'm asking you because I was opposed by Snoteleks on the issue. Jako96 (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Plantae is treated as a synonym of Viridiplantae in the Plant article, but that does need to be the case everywhere. I think for articles on common plants you want the taxobox to end with Kingdom Plantae. On the other hand, for articles on higher taxa I think it's better to use Embryophyta, Viridiplantae and Archaeplastida, because then you don't need to choose a definition of Plantae. So I favour Viridiplantae for Prasinodermophyta, which is the current arrangement. I'd also argue that for people reading the Embryophyte article itself it would also be better to have Viridiplantae so it is agnostic on Plantae definition. The articles on families, genera and species of embryophytes will show Kingdom Plantae, but this is also effectively agnostic, as only Plantae would be displayed regardless of definition.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:46, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we should have two taxonomy templates for Phragmoplastophyta? That way, embryophyte articles would show Plantae but protist articles wouldn't, such as the charophytes. Jako96 (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Isn't that what currently happens? Embryophytes go to Kingdom Plantae. Non-embryophytes such as Charophyta use a fuller hierarchy up to Eukaryote. Is there a particular protist taxobox that you think is not doing this?  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:50, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but when Embryophyta's parent will now be changed to Phragmoplastophyta, embryophytes won't show Plantae instantly, as Phragmoplastophyta is still assigned to Streptophyta, which has Viridiplantae has a parent at this time, not Plantae. Changing that to Plantae would make charophytes shown under Plantae too, and other non-embryophyte streptophytes. Jako96 (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd don't think we need a second Phragmoplastophyta taxonomy template. I think restoring the difference between {{Taxonomy/Embryophytes}} and {{Taxonomy/Embryophytes/Plantae}} can provide the solution. Make Phragmoplastophyta the parent of the former and leave the /Plantae template as it is now. The vast majority of embryophyte articles would display kingdom Plantae, but I'd change the Embryophyta article taxobox so its shows Phragmoplastophyta, Streptophyta and Viridiplantae. I'm doing an experiment to determine which taxoboxes use {{Taxonomy/Embryophytes}} and {{Taxonomy/Embryophytes/Plantae}}. Currently the former has two hundred more translusions but most are due the |same_as= parameter in {{Taxonomy/Embryophytes/Plantae}}, which I've removed temporarily as a test. It will take some time for the changes to propagate through.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:28, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

What's up with that test at this time, could you please tell me? Jako96 (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I made an edit request. Jako96 (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Also I agree with the last sentence. Jako96 (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Removing "evergreen" from conifer species articles?

Abcde31413 has been removing the term "evergreen" from a large number of conifer species articles, e.g. here, here, and here. While it is true that the vast majority of conifers are evergreen, is this redundant information that should be removed from the articles? What do other editors think? — hike395 (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

i feel it is because deciduous conifers are such a small fraction of the total that it should only be mentioned if it is deciduous. of course i've left references to these words in all of the conifer plant family articles and been careful about entirely replacing the word in larger articles for genera Abcde31413 (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

regardless i can stop for now Abcde31413 (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Abcde31413 @Hike395 I'd be inclined to keep the 'evergreen' statement; it's about 2½–3% of conifers are deciduous, which I reckon is enough to mean that conifer does not automatically equal evergreen - MPF (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed in discussions with friends and relations that conifer, evergreen, softwood and non-broadleaf are terms that people use to refer to a taxon that has been circumscribed as Pinopsida. The counterparts to those terms are flowering plant, deciduous, hardwood and I guess needle/scaleleaf. I think conifer is a reasonable title for the article Pinopsida redirects to, but based on the etymology of conifer as something bearing cones, I would also consider cycads (at least) to be cone-bearing. The other terms used for Pinopsida are even worse. There are evergreen magnolias and deciduous larches; balsa wood is very soft, and there are many plants with reduced leaves that aren't Pinopsida.

Conifer/evergreen/softwood/non-broadleaf are descriptive words that are frequently used for Pinopsida but not exclusive to Pinopsida in what they may apply to.

My first concept with terms from my childhood that I remember was coniferous/deciduous, which ultimately describe different traits.

"Evergreen" seems to me to be generally redundant to conifer to me. Wikipedia does have some very redundant lead sentences for organisms (24,000) articles with "marine gastropod mollusk"). Plantdrew (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Coming from a climate where broadleaved evergreen trees and shrubs are abundant, I at least don't experience the "evergreen=conifer" syndrome that seems to affect so many in places with colder continental climates (eastern USA, looking at you!!); likewise, larches and Metasequoia are quite frequent and well-known. So definitely not redundant. Talking of redundancies in lead sentences though, it would be nice to be rid of that ghastly verbosity "commonly known as" 🤢🤮 that infests far too many pages. Oh, and phrases like "this species is monotypic: meaning that it has no subspecies...".

As an aside, how do you know there are 24,000 articles with "marine gastropod mollusk"? The search results page doesn't tell you the total, and even with it set to show 500 items, that's still having to scroll to the end of the results page and click 'next', 48 times... ?? - MPF (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

It says at the top right before the search results (at least on my mobile) "Results 1 – 50 of 24,836". Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@SunloungerFrog thanks! Yep, I see it now . . . hidden well away from the actual search results list, and in faint pale grey invisible ink . .. Grief!! Whose idea was that?!?! - MPF (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

APG V draft

Some of you may know this, but this was news to me. A draft of APG V was published earlier this year with a request for community feedback (see Facebook post). The draft APG V classification is on Google docs.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:43, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jts1882 eeew, on farcebook and google, two highly dodgy websites 😬 . . . can't they put it anywhere better? - MPF (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Can we get an Orchids taskforce in here?

Orchids have, like, a lot of species, and I think it’d be great to have a good taskforce to work on improving them. Cheers, _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 04:34, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

(Pinging people who I know have improved/made orchid articles:

@HolyEgg, @Chiswick Chap) Cheers, _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 19:10, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@Nephellium, @Linux Luvver Cheers, _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 20:27, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Phragmoplastophyta

Phragmoplastophyta is parent to some groups now, but not to some. This overall creates a WP:SYNTH taxonomy. Plantae should also be assigned to Phragmoplastophyta, because, as seen in the #Plantae meaning discussion above, it seems like people here support to use Plantae for Embryophyta. Phragmoplastophyta is a strongly supported clade, as seen in a source such as Adl et al., 2019. Jako96 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Pbritti as they supported Plantae for Embryophyta in that discussion, they might have a knowledge about this clade too. Jako96 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Pongamia

Currently the Pongamia page treats it as a monotypic genus comprising only Pongamia pinnata based on POWO's 2023 treatment. However, POWO now accepts 54 species in this genus. Could someone move the current Pongamia page to Pongamia pinnata, and then convert Pongamia from the auto-created redirect into a genus page, please? I don't have page-moving powers. The Taxonomy section will also need rewriting. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I moved the page to Pongamia pinnata and created a stub for genus Pongamia (taxobox, species list, taxonbar). I don't know how many of the species have articles under another name, but those will also need moving.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:09, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jts1882 I checked the three synonym names cited, and we have pages for Fordia (including 3 existing species pages) and Ibatiria (monotypic) that will need merge/move work; nothing for Cajum though. Also a lot of the species have been transferred from Millettia (now just 7 species in Asia plus a lot in Africa). The genus Otosema (POWO) is also resurrected, with 3 species (so our Otosema page will need changing into an animal/plant homonym disambiguation page, as it is also a synonym for a moth😖). We'll also need to cite the paper by Z.Q.Song which makes all the new combinations in Pongamia (plus several others in other genera); here, available via the wikipedia library (I've downloaded a copy, if anyone can't get it). - MPF (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I've expanded Pongamia slightly to add the Song reference, but still plenty to do! - MPF (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

All the moves also need changes at Wikidata. As most of the new combinations don't have entities that is even more work. I'm not sure if some bot will eventually made new entities for the POWO entries. Incidentally WFO also accepts the 54 species in Pongamia  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:04, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion potentially of interest to this project

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture#Red links in breed navboxes?. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

"TSAR" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect TSAR has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 September 11 § TSAR until a consensus is reached.

Note: This discussion covers two redirects: TSAR and TSAR supergroup, which currently have different targets. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Request for third opinion at Sambucus nigra

Additional opinions would be appreciated at Talk:Sambucus nigra#Misleading summary of cited sources. Nosferattus (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Move request

To move Phragmites americanus over its redirect Phragmites australis subsp. americanus to bring it into line with POWO - MPF (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done Peter coxhead (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

@Peter coxhead Thanks! - MPF (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

APG V has just published!

It is here. コロネン/Coronene (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

A small query about it; there appears to be an inconsistency in nomenclature in Fig. 1, the group Rosids includes the groups Fabids and Malvids, with Fabids in turn including Fabales and Rosales. On the principle of autonymy, as the group 'Fabids' includes the name-bearing group (Rosales) of its parent group (Rosids), it too should be 'Rosids', but with a different suffix? - MPF (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The code doesn't apply to taxa above family group level. They do follow the same principle for naming orders, but for some reason they didn't for these groupings. They made a choice to use informal names rather than formal taxa, like the superorders used before, so perhaps that was part of the reason.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:03, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, the Asterids include the Campanulids, with the Campanulids in turn including Campanulales and Asterales. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Eeeew! What a confusing mess! Thanks!! - MPF (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Many of our articles on small, obscure families mention classification under APG system prior to IV, but never were updated to mention IV. Achatocarpaceae and Aextoxicaceae don't even mention APG III (that is just from me going through families alphabetically, and the first two I found that don't mention IV don't mention III either, so I'm not sure how far behind we actually are with references). Plantdrew (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Taxonomic synonym in lede?

Editor(s) keep removing a taxonomic synonym from the lede of Hesperocyparis macrocarpa. Just checking -- is a synonym acceptable in the lede sentence? — hike395 (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I would say yes if it is still sometimes known by that name or if a historical name that has only recently been changed.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Including a synonym in the lede is definitely acceptable in some cases. Salvia yangii (Perovskia atriplicifolia), pea (Pisum sativum/Lathyrus oleraceus), lentil (Lens culinaris/Vicia lens) and rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis/Salvia rosmarinus) are some examples where the synonym is much more widespread than the current name, and where the species epithet has been changed as well. Plantdrew (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

This discussion reminded to me add the synonym of Aquilegia ecalcarata used in cultivation to that article's lead. Been meaning to do that for a while, whoops. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2026 (UTC)