Talk:Cannabaceae

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cannabaceae article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

There seems to be disagreement between the taxobox and the article text on what order this is in. Can someone clarify? Tuf-Kat 00:48, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

fixed, should be Urticales -- WormRunner 01:32, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

well, I made it consistent anyway. Some people apparently do put it in Rosales. I was following Cronquist. Will look into it more. WormRunner 01:42, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Great job, thanks! Tuf-Kat 20:20, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

I have conflicting nomenclature for the trees found from Costa Rica to Surinam: Helicostylis sp. the books I've seen say Cannabaceae- but now searching web says Moraceae-I do know that several specie have that "effect" =:o) Also, of the Cannabis vars. I've seen grown wild in northern Japan, the whole plant is that purple-red color like the ornamental plum.FYI Schlüggell 05:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

About the Taxonomic Classification

All the cannabaceae members, including Cannabis belong to the Urticales Order AND NOT to the Rosales. There are plenty of articles that are wrong (some of them are protected or semi-protected which make things harder to edit) and this is unacceptable. I'm editing this and I'll be with my eyes open to track every similar mistake. Thanks! -Facu unlp (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting your information from? The Angiosperm Phylogeny Website has the Cannabaceae in order Rosales. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I usually get information from Strasburger's "Lehrbuch der Botanik" which in the latest versions includes Cannabaceaes in Urticales Order. I also use the online version of the United States Deparment of Agriculture (http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch?keywordquery=Cannabis&mode=sciname&submit.x=0&submit.y=0) which also places Cannabaceaes in Urticales order. However, I've been searching more and I found this: http://www.amjbot.org/content/89/9/1531.full

That paper states that new genetic investigations show that "apparently" Ulmaceae and Urticales members would belong to Rosales Order. I don't know if there are sources more realiable than others, but I personally think this isn't an easy topic to resolve. Facu unlp (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The benefit of using APG is that it is a consortium of experts who filter all this material for us and make updates online as they find them. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been browsing the Spanish Wikipedia and they resolved this issue by adding the Classification system used for each Order. Like this and it's not a bad idea at all. Can we use the same mechanism to avoid further problems? If there is a positive answer then I'll do my best to edit all the articles so there's no confusion. Facu unlp (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has undoubtedly been a lot of discussion of this. I'll ask for input at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The system used in the Spanish wikipedia looks very good. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see any reason to continue using Cronquist since it has little evidence to support it anymore. APG has the advantage of being a synthesis of a large number of molecular studies. The only reason to present the Cronquist system is inertia, since herbaria and botanical gardens are usually presented this way still. As I've said many times, the way I would resolve this is adding a parameter to the taxobox that allows the editor to define the classification system used in each taxobox. This has not been thoroughly discussed, though. I suspect there would be some support for this. Rkitko ^(talk) 23:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a different reason for wanting to see more than one classification listed in a taxobox. It comes from the upcoming International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants, which will require the names of subfamilies to follow any family names that have been "conserved", for example, any subfamily of Rosaceae that includes the genus Malus must be called Maloideae unless it also includes the genus Amygdalus, in which case it must be called Amygdaloideae. It so happens that the latest phylogenetic work has made one huge subfamily (the authors called it Spiraeoideae) that includes both Malus and Amygdalus, so the correct name for "the apple subfamily" is now Amygdaloideae ("the almond subfamily"). Just about anyone who has seen any oldish botany book would gasp in horror if wikipedia had been changed to reflect this. Frankly, I'm dreading the necessary changes, and would like to be able to list a classic old version as well as the "correct" subfamily name. Nadiatalent (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For (most) taxa at subfamily or lower, there is nothing as authoritative as APG to follow. I'm not convinced that the dust has settled on the division of the Rosaceae into subfamilies (especially in terms of their ranks and names), so I'm not sure what to recommend in that case. I can't really bear to ponder it without reminding myself of the Robert Frost poem which we currently quote at Prunoideae. Kingdon (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your changes at Spiraeoideae. I've continued on at Spiraeoideae and have moved Prunoideae to Amygdaloideae as turns out to be required by simple priority rules. On the Talk:Spiraeoideae page I've also quoted the draft (approved by the editorial committee, and therefore presumably absolutely final) of the changes to the code. It is a hairy situation, and for that reason I requested that the example be expanded to cover the current situation (it was to include only Pyroideae and Maloideae). When there is an explicit example in the code of nomenclature we really can't ignore it, even if we can quietly hope that the next phylogeny of Rosaceae will change things around again (I don't see any hope of that happening unless somehow the groundswell of opinion in favour of allowing paraphyletic groups can somehow prevail). Nadiatalent (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

APG III is the de facto standard used by all decent botanists. There may be room in the text to deal with alternative placements, which at the moment only mentions Rosales as a current position. The taxobox is a summary of consensus, and there is no real opposition in the botanical world to APG III, which is also followed on the English Wikipedia across the rest of the angiosperms (WP:PLANTS/Resources: For angiosperm taxoboxes, we generally prefer APG III, although exceptions may be made if more recent information is available.). I can see no justification for trying to shoehorn an outdated system into the taxobox alongside an authoritative modern one. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the grounds that we should not throw out the old books; much of the information is still only to be found in them. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Stemonitis is suggesting we throw out the old books. He's correct is saying that the taxobox is a summary of consensus, so we shouldn't try to cram two competing systems into it. For consistency's sake, we have applied APG III to most taxoboxes (I'm still working on that). Alternative placements and past systems are usually mentioned in the article text. The old books are still useful, but the taxobox is not the place to display and older classification system. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So would adding ^{See text} in the taxobox be an acceptable compromise? Nadiatalent (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what that would accomplish. You'd be putting ^{See text} next to every order and above in nearly every taxobox, since the many different classification systems vary widely. Consensus was to display APG III and the rest are explained in text. It's completely fine, however, to note uncertainty at the rank of subfamily, for example, like I've seen you do in some articles. In that case it's hard to make a decision, unlike here where we have a well-known and widely accepted system for taxa at family rank and above. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these matters are discussed in the text very often, so a pointer to it when it is discussed seems useful to me. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're discussed quite frequently on family articles where the classification has changed. I've seen this a lot on family and order articles. If it isn't present yet, it should be and we just haven't gotten to it. I don't see a ^{See text} accomplishing much and in fact it may give the false sense of confusion in the classification system used in every flowering plant taxobox. However, I think a quick statement above the classification, "Classification system: APG III," would let readers unfamiliar with the placement, as here with the Cronquist placement of Cannabaceae in Urticales, understand why it's in the Rosales. The only problem with that, as has been mentioned before, is that some classification systems are only for higher taxa and the placement of genera in families is another matter. I haven't figure out a response to that other than those placements aren't usually called classification systems. Again, though, I think the taxobox is meant to be a summary and summaries are necessarily simplistic. There's far too much complexity to be included reasonably, so we accept a little confusion for a simple and clean presentation under a consistent classification. Rkitko ^(talk) 19:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The general issue has been aired more than once at WT:PLANTS, and the consensus was, as far as I understand it, that (a) a taxobox can only sensibly contain a single classification hierarchy (b) for angiosperms we will currently use APG III (c) older or alternative classifications should be discussed in the text.

I think Nadia is wrong to say that these matters aren't discussed in the text very often: some articles seem to contain very little but discussions of taxonomic alternatives (something User:EncycloPetey has in my view rightly complained about in the past). Asparagaceae is on my "to-do" list for just this reason: it tells a general reader nothing descriptive about the family.

Rkitko did suggest at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive56#Classification_to_be_used_for_embryophytes:_problems_and_possible_solution that there could be a parameter |classification_system= in taxoboxes; an idea which I supported, but which didn't receive much support (but wasn't really opposed either). Perhaps this idea should be revived. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source for circumscription

The lead says "According to the Royal Botanical Gardens database, there are ..." Assuming that Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew is meant, there are a number of "Kew databases". Cannabaceae isn't in the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families; the only up-to-date database I can find on the Kew site has only the Neotropical Cannabaceae. There's a very old database here, but this has only Cannabis and Humulus, and is anyway very out-of-date. Can anyone clarify this? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now edited the article (and expanded it a bit) to use APWeb as the source for the circumscription.

The authority was given as "Endl.", but both APWeb and the Sytsma et al. (2002) reference I used say it's "Martynov" for the conserved name, so I've used this.

The article needs more work if anyone has time and energy... Peter coxhead (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

I volunteer to add IPA phonemic transcriptions[1] of Cannabaceae to this article. Since I cannot find Cannabaceae in any dictionary, can I instead reference sources such as EmmaSaying's video "How to Say Cannabaceae"[2] and PrairieLandscapes' video "Cannabaceae"[3] to justify my phonemic transcriptions? Please let me know if you have any objection to this approach. Yes390 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is not a reliable source, as per WP:UGC. And, as has been discussed multiple times at WP:PLANTS, there is little point in giving pronunciations of scientific names, since these differ widely – even "wildly" – even among biologists in the same institution. (See, as just one example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive67#Pronunciation of plant family names. If you search the archives for "pronunciation", you'll find many other threads.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chaetachme

Under "Genera", the first two references support the the placement of Chaetachme in Cannabaceae. However the third ("!!Cannabaceae Martinov". Tropicos. 2017.) does not; instead placing it in Ulmaceae. This is also the position taken by [WFO] and even our own page on Chaetachme. If there is a lack of consensus in the literature on this point, I feel a note should indicate such. — 98.110.34.14 (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]