Talk:Botanical name

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Tree of Life Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life 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.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Well, it took only a few hours for someone to delete the facts. Prejudice runs strong in Wikipedia! 19 Sep 2005

The facts were removed because they're already covered at Linnaean taxonomy and associated pages. Any new facts should probably be listed there as well, including that all botanical names should be italicized, if it is indeed something supported by the botanical code. I don't feel bad for being prejudiced against redundancy, if that's what you mean. Josh

Well, the entry "Linnaean taxonomy" covers a great deal, but contains quite a bit that is completely fictitious. Presumably that is not salvegable, as prejudices run strong. The entry "binomial nomenclature" is not all that bad, but has its share of errors. As to your question of whether "all botanical names should be italicized, if it is indeed something supported by the botanical code", well, the 2000 and 1994 ICBN are both online. Why don't you just check the facts first, before you take action? 20 Sep 2005

Fictitious material should be fixed in place; it doesn't look like you've made much attempt at correcting anything, and you haven't tried bringing up any problems on the discussion page, but you should do so before creating a second set of pages, which will only confuse things. I didn't see any new facts here to justify a separate page. As for full italicization, ICBN uses it but didn't seem to require it. If this is wrong or has changed, update the appropriate article, and provide a reference if you think people will disagree. Josh

Fixing things in place sounds wonderful, but only if it worth doing or even possible. I made a start which apparently survived as much as eight minutes.

Also, as you should know (class 101?) nomenclature (botanical names, etc) is something completely different from taxonomy. These two fields should never be treated together in the same entry. Methodology is completely different.

As to the ICBN, you are expressing yourself poorly. The ICBN does not require italicization for any name, in any case. As far as the ICBN says anything about it (by example) italicization applies to all botanical names. - 20 Sep 2005

"It is helpful to italicize botanical names, following the example set by the ICBN. This is better accepted for names at the rank of genus and below than for names above the rank of genus"

It is not for this page to say it is, or is not, helpful. The readily observable fact is that the great majority of English-language botanical publications do not italicise ranks above genus; wikipedia's own style guide specifies that only genera and lower ranks are to be italicised. Whether that style should or should not be changed is another matter, which can be discussed among the wikipedia community, but not imposed by dictat here or elsewhere in article space - MPF 00:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The version:

For example the botanical name Bellis perennis is used worldwide for a plant species that goes by numerous common names in several different languages (English names for this plant species include lawndaisy, common daisy, daisy, etc).

may be an accurate representation within the borders of the USA, although even in that context it has the sound of being an understatement (more than "several different languages" are in use within the borders of the US). Worldwide it is a gross misrepresentation.

My statements all look quite true:

1. In print botanical names are often italicized. -- One might debate "often", but it should be safe.
2. The example set by the ICBN is to italicize all botanical names. -- This is not in doubt
3. In practice a great number of styles are in use concerning typesetting of botanical names. -- I quickly gave up trying to count how many. There is a finite number of such styles, and it won't run to dozens, but more than I care to count.
4. Many publications do not italicize names above the rank of genus, or above the rank of subfamily. -- The word "many" is conservative, but it may well be accurate, depending on what publications one is counting.
5. In this there are national differences, with italicization above the rank of genus least popular in the US. -- A new addition; might need further tuning.

On the other hand, MrDarwin's statements were not as accurate

1. Botanical names at the rank of genus and below are printed in italics when it is possible to do so -- Very many publications don't use any kind of special typesetting for any botanical name, and quite likely these form a majority of publications. Possibly even a preponderant majority.
2. (underlined in some older references, especially those produced on a typewriter). -- This has happened, but actually is so rare I do not really see it rates a mention. Nevertheless I kept it (I remain dubious).
3. The example set by the ICBN is to italicize all botanical names at all ranks (e.g., family) -- The example "(e.g., family)" is a little odd, and limiting. Linguistically I am not happy with the repeat of "all" here ("all botanical names" firmly includes names at all ranks).
4. but only a small minority of botanical publications have adopted this convention, generally reserving italics for names at the rank of genus and below. -- There are many things wrong with this, such as that it disregards non-botanical publications to adopt this style. A "small minority" is not a particularly clear indication of the amount, and is rather a PoV characterization.

I am just trying to be as accurate an NPoV as possible. Brya 19:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief Brya, if you're going to critique my version, at least critique the right one. My most recent version did not say what you just claimed it said. And if you're going to put in a few little "facts" of your own let's see some substantiation of them, please. (And while you're moving the goalposts, I'm curious to find out just which "non-botanical publications" have adopted such italicization; they seem to be as hard to find as the botanical ones--and of the latter I still don't think 10% is mischaracterized as a "small minority".) MrDarwin 21:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge Binary name into this article. It may eventually merit an article of its own, but both articles have sat around with minimal content for well over a year now, and the content of Binary name nicely fits under the coverage of Botanical name. --EncycloPetey 16:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of duplicated material between the various articles, I'm all for reducing the number of articles. I'd eventually merge far more than just these two, but yes, I support the merge. (I just found a new duplication: both Binomial nomenclature and Nomenclature Codes try to list the differences between the botanical, zoological, bacteriological, etc, codes). Kingdon 19:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I perfectly agree with Kingdon. We have too many stubs, a small number of complete and well written articles is always preferable, so I support the merger. Aelwyn 12:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actively editing lately but this page is on my watch list and from the above discussion it's probably obvious I have some opinions about it! I certainly support a merge but see also the Binomen article, and possibly others. I would suggest that the article title be something broader than "Botanical name", as the zoological details can probably be incorporated also to produce a more informative and comprehensive article. Maybe this could all be reduced to a section under Binomial nomenclature? MrDarwin 13:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think a separate article should be maintained for plant names (versus other names) given the important distinctions between the Codes, and given the need for a general article specific to plants for plant articles to link to. While there is a lot of overlap in the underlying priniciples, there are many differences in the way they are applied in practice, incuding authors versus dates, conservation, capitalization, and many other details. --EncycloPetey 13:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed. --EncycloPetey 15:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More subsp details are needed. This covers also var., ecotype, etc. Also add nothosubsp. as in

Dactylorhiza incarnata nothosubsp. krylovii

Mentha x piperita subsp. nothosubsp. piperita --Connection (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]