Talk:List of Rosa species

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Plants (Rated SL-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Start-Class list SL  This article has been rated as SL-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

I've put some work into a more complete list of Rose species. This list shows (where I know) the subgenus and section for the species. It also lists synonyms and common names where I know them. Although this list is more complete than the one on the main Rose page, it's still not as complete as it might be - I'm still working on it. Additions are welcome (of course, that's the whole point of wikipedia). Since it's such a big change, I thought I'd put it on a separate page for now with a link from the Rose page. Question: Should it stay on a separate page (with the existing list removed) since it's gotten long or should I replace the existing list with this text? Henryhartley 18:25, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can add, tho' I don't always have access to info on their subgeneric and sectional allocation. When all the species are allocated, perhaps the whole list could be listed taxonomically rather than alphabetically. A few points: (1) "Rosa banksiae normalis" - in botany, an indication of the rank of the infraspecific taxon must be given; I'm assuming variety, but if it is a subspecies, please change it; (2) I'm separating hybrids off to a discrete paragraph at the end. A lot of hybrids are inter-sectional and can't be allocated to a particular section. (3) the subgeneric and sectional names should be italicised (all ranks below genus are) - MPF 21:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1) As regards R. banksiae normalis, quoting from The Rose, An Illustrated History by Peter Harkness, Copyright 2003, "Contention of a different kind has surrounded R. banksiae normalis [Banksiae], in both its naming and the story of its origin. In the usual course of events it should have been called just R. banksiae because it appears to be a true Chinese species. In fact, another rose derived from it, with more petals, had been discovered several years earlier and named R. banksiae. The name of that rose was then altered to R. banksiae banksiae (though it is generally known as R. banksiae alba-plena), and its ancestor became R. banksiae normalis, the word normalis indicating it is a prototype." While most roses are named "correctly" following standard practice, there are a few, like this, widely considered to be species whose specific names are not single words. Based on this, I've added the normalis back to the name.
Harkness is in breach of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) here. The prototype is by definition R. banksiae var. banksiae; names like "normalis", "spontanea", etc., are illegitimate under the code if used in this manner. That a species was originally described from a cultivar of the species does not affect the name; a cultivar has no botanical status and is botanically a synonym of the species, and therefore it is incorrect to give a separate botanical name to the wild plant from which the cultivar was developed. Harkness may be an expert on roses, but this doesn't make him an expert on plant nomenclature. He further demonstrates his severe ignorance of botanical norms by failing to indicate the rank of the taxa (subspecies, varietas, forma, etc.). Sadly, a fault all too common among horticulturalists who have had no botanical training. - MPF 22:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2) One advantage in a single alphabetical list that includes important hybrids (the old ones that were once considered species) is that it's much easier to find a particular rose this way. Grouping them by subgenus and section makes finding a rose harder since relatively few people know about these groupings. I'd "vote" for a single list of species, synonyms, and R. x <whatever>. If someone wanted to start a list of all rose varieties I'd agree that should be a separate list on a separate page. In terms of this page, I think the two existing sections (Subgenera and sections and species) are adequate. I would think, however, it is appropriate to add a sentence or paragraph about each species on this page. These would describe form, flower color, place of origin, importance to rose breednig and history, etc.
I can see your point here, though it should also be made clear what is what. Options would be to use bold italic for accepted species, indent the synonyms or use a different text colour or something.
3) On your point (3), Peter Harkness does not italicize the subgenera names in his book so I'm not sure how universally followed that practice is. I got my list of four subgenera and the ten sections under Eurosa from that book. Is the use of Rosa instead of Eurosa a more recent practice (and Harkness is out of date) or an older practice still sometimes used? Henryhartley 19:41, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Again, Harkness is wrong and showing his ignorance of botanical standards. And yes, he is (badly!) out of date; the ICBN stipulates that the name of any section of a genus which includes the type species of the genus must take the same name as the genus (called an autonym, 'automatic name'). Prefixes like 'Eu-' are expressly repudiated by the code (and have been for 20-30 years at least!). - MPF 22:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Then I assume anywhere Cinnamomeae shows up in the list it should be changed to Rosa (e.g. for Rosa acicularis)? And the subgenera and sections should be italicized in the species list? I'm happy to do it, just don't want to do something that someone else will have to fix. In any case, I think this list is already significantly better than the list on the main Rose page. Should that list be trimmed to just the most important (for some definition of important)? Also, the link to this page probably doesn't need to say that the list is "under construction" since it is no more under construction than the rest of Wikipedia - which is to say it is. Henryhartley 21:08, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, to all points; my suggestion for 'important' would be those rose species that already have wiki pages of their own, plus maybe a couple more American species (the eight that currently have pages have a fairly good geographic spread except a bit short on American species; maybe R. virginiana as a typical eastern species, and R. stellata as a western species and for its botanical interest) (and then start pages for these!). Perhaps also R. persica and R. roxburghii. I'll have a go at starting some of these off if you like. - MPF 11:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving to standard name and putting in category with the other lists of this type. (The cat makes a useful resource to see what other people have done.) In general I think the main Rose article is most useful when it includes 5-10 of the "most important" species, the ones that people are most likely to be looking up, and then people can bounce to here to find the most comprehensive list online. At some point I'm going to succumb and make a parallel mega-list of cultivars, the online resources elsewhere are just terrible. But now I have to go transplant a Raphiolepis (hmm, need to create that I guess) to make room for bare roots that will be arriving any day now... Stan 22:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW, it's usual for list entries to only get about one line of descriptive material, basically enough for a couple key words/phrases. Otherwise it slows down scanning for a particular entry, because you can't see as much of the list at once, especially for people with small screens (and I have seen someone read WP on a PDA!). If you have as much as a paragraph on a species, it's time to give it its own article. Articles are also the better place to go into nomenclature disputes between growers and botanists :-), you have room for citations, etc. Stan 01:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rosa wichuraiana[edit]

Has this not now changed to R. wichurana? I haven't seen any botanical text stating this to be so, but in his 2006 - 2007 catalogue, UK rose grower Peter Beales (who holds the UK National Collection of Rosa species), states: "Irritatingly, after 160 or more years, to conform to the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature, the spelling of Rosa wichuraiana has been changed to wichurana. This makes every rose book written since 1834 inaccurate. What is wrong with precedent? This is pedantry gone mad!" I include the quote in its entirety as it is rather amusing - but I'm assuming that he isn't mistaken in the fact that R. wichuraiana is now R. wichurana? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaleCloudedWhite (talkcontribs) 22:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, wichuraiana it is. IPNI is usually reliable about matters of orthography. IPNI entry. The ICBN is decided on by votes at the botanical congress, and the aim is always to find a compromise between stability and fairness to all authors. I went to one meeting and was very impressed, it was the best demonstration of what scholarly democracy ought to be that I've ever seen. Nadiatalent (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible that the info from IPNI is incorrect? I'm querying it because I've just had a look in all my books, and the newer ones list it as R. wichurana. Interestingly, in Martyn Rix and Roger Phillips' 1994 book "Roses", it's R. wichuraiana, but in their "The Ultimate Guide to Roses", published 2004, it's become R. wichurana, with "also called R. wichuraiana" in parentheses. I'm thinking some kind of change must have been proposed for all these sources (including the Royal Horticultural Society in their 2004 "Encyclopedia of Roses") to list wichurana as the correct form? (Also, I remember a discussion on this matter taking place a few years back at a meeting of the UK Historic Roses Group - people were mentioning that wichuraiana had become wichurana). Any possible explanantion for these discrepancies with the IPNI? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
That is a good question, which takes a bit of tracking down. The original publication is in our library here, it is François Crépin, 1886. Rosa Synstylae: études sur les roses de la section Synstyleés. Bulletin de la Société Royale de Botanique de Belgique 25(part 2):163–217 (I think the last page was 217, but have mislaid a note about that). Part 2 of the journal is also called Comptes-redus des séances de la Société Royale de Botanique de Belgique, which is how it is listed in IPNI. The author definitely uses the spelling Rosa Wichuraiana, and doesn't discuss why that name. The old-fashioned capitalization indicates that it is named either after a place or a person, but I can only guess that the intention was to name it after Max Ernst Wichura, the botanist. If that was the case, we get into one of the hairiest parts of the code of nomenclature, article 60.11. I think that the relevant point is part (c) of Recommendation 60C (which is made mandatory by article 60.11), which produces "wichurana". I'll ask for help from the IPNI editors! Nadiatalent (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for looking into this - it sounds like you've been doing a bit of legwork around the library floors! I wait to hear what the IPNI people have to say ..... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Update: a very fast response from the IPNI editors is as follows: that since Crépin did not make clear who he was naming this species after, they are reluctant to change the name from the original spelling. I think we could explain that on a page about R. wichurana/wichuraiana, i.e. that there currently two different opinions in circulation. Are you considering making up a species page? Nadiatalent (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I could have a bash - I had started making species pages recently, and was starting with ones I've actually grown (R. willmottiae, R. fedtschenkoana). I was going to do R. nitida next, but yes, why not make it R. wichuraiana (or R, wichurana!) instead? (Actually I personally prefer wichurana, but only because I don't have to think how to spell it!) Incidentally, while on the subject of creating articles, do you know if it makes any difference to an article's google ranking if it's created using the Article Wizard or not? I ask because the first plant article I created (Ilex cornuta), I used the Article Wizard, and it's since always been ranked 2nd or 3rd on google page 1. But then with the rose articles mentioned above, I didn't use the Article Wizard (because I wanted to avoid the 'New unreviewed article' template which hangs around for months), and those articles are nowhere to be seen on google - I went down 6 or 7 pages, but nothing. ? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
If you have the time and inclination, go for it. I've never used the article wizard. Here's a thought though, if you use it, a few editors will review the new unreviewed article, and that will provide a hit count for google. Google is very conscious of hit counts. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)