Talk:List of extinct plants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 List of extinct plants is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
List This article has been rated as list-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject on Extinction

This article is part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinct animals, extinct plants and extinction in general. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

[edit] Narrowing

I propose we limit this list to modern extinctions. The fossil species could be put on the Plant fossil page. Enlil Ninlil 06:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems with that approach: (1) What does "modern" mean? (2) How do we tell when a "modern" extinction has occurred? Those questions are nowhere near as easy to answer as you might think. With plants known only as fossils from the Mesozoic or earlier, this issue is fairly easy to settle; but for fossils that are only 3,000 years old, the issue is not easy to resolve. --EncycloPetey 15:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
To answer your question's, (1) Modern would be defined as a modern scientific recording of a species that was present in a habitat but is no longer found in the wild or in horticultural collections. (2) You can only prove a modern extinction has occured using the scientific method to gater data, analyse it and come up with a conclusion. Of corse this process is always under review and can be changed through more evidence. Maybe we could include a combination of evidence like historical Literature and scientific analysis, but that is not the role of wikipedia, so scieticific evidence should surfice. Enlil Ninlil 04:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Your answers don't help explain what "modern" means. Your answer (1) says "Modern would be defined as a modern..." (emphasis added). That's a circular definition! Also, what do you mean by a "scientific recording"? Recordings are recordings, they are never scientific or unscientific. The scientific methos is never used in recording plant localities, and in fact many herbarium specimens and published reports of plants in the wild come from amateurs rather than professionals. If we're going to limit this page to certain "modern" plants, we need an operational definition for determining what counts and what doesn't.
Your recent edits to Psilophyton and Gigantopterid suggest that you are not familiar with plant taxonomy or nomenclature; I suggest that you don't try to edit taxoboxes. --EncycloPetey 15:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually I wasn't editing them, I was placing taxaboxes in base on evidennse I provided, and scientific recording is used when obtaining an acurate picture of plant distribution. Enlil Ninlil 07:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
But the information you put in the taxoboxes was mostly wrong. You added words that don't exist, or put the name in the wrong place. You also do not know what a "genus authority" is because you cited Bold et al (a textbook on plant morphology) as the original publication for a genus name, which it is not. You need to know how to correctly read the evidence you are using, not simply stick in random information. --EncycloPetey 17:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok this is off topic, please past this on my talk page or the article page, thanks mate, I wont discuss further here. Ok so if the term modern is too wide, maybe we can narrow down for species not to include. Fossil species can be put into the fossil plant article with a reference to them. Is tha idea plausible? Enlil Ninlil 05:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
No, becuase there are thousands of species known as fossils. Some fossils are form taxa, and do not belong to any particular species, such as Lepidophyllum which is fossil foliage from any of several species of Lepdiodendron. There is also the problem that, while some fossils are from species of extinct plants, other fossils are from living species. So, just because there is a fossil doesn't mean the species is extinct. We need one list for fossils and a second list for extinct plants, but there will be some overlap because some fossils belong to extinct plants, but not all fossils do. --EncycloPetey 15:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"Some fossils are form taxa" - including, in fact, gigantopterids it seems (I have added some to that article). In any case, most of the "common names" on this page here are unsourceable. While there is no "authority" for plant names (birds I think are the only major organism group for which standardized common names exist) and it is perhaps permissible to make up a common name if most other members of a genus have one and those follow a logical sequence, the sheer number of apparently invented common names - most of which do not follow the usual rules anyway - is too much.
Also, Mauritius is not part of Oceania. The closest it would ever get is that it was narrowly missed by the western Austronesian expansion. But that does not really count I guess. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Why not restrict this list to species of plants that meet the IUCN's criteria for redlisting, which is extinct since 1500. The IUCN is a reasonable and widely-recognized authority. Older extinctions which may have caused/contributed to by humans (directl or indirectly) could be given their own list. Fossil plants can have their own page. Finally, there could also be a list of extinct-in-the-wild plants. This is basically what WikiProject Birds does:
Hence, this page could have plant extinctions since 1500. Late Quaternary prehistoric plants could have plants extinct before 1500 but after humans arose; Prehistoric plants could have plants known only from fossils.
Yes, there is a possibility of there being debate about when a species went extinct, with some thinking it was circa 1300 and others thinking it was after 1500. In that case, the plant could simply be listed in both lists until a scientific consensus emerges. Indeed, that would be the most neutral thing to do.
Finally, nothing stops there being prehistoric species or subspecies of extant taxa being listed. For example, the coconut (Cocos nucifera) is extant. If someone were to discover a paleosubspecies of the coconut, (C. n. archaea), the subspecies could be listed in the appropriate page, with a note explaining it's a subspecies or in its own section. Similarly, if someone were to discover a prehistoric species of (say) Aster, that ancient Aster could be listed whereever it would be approapriate. The fact that Aster still exists does not make it imappropriate to list that ancient, prehistoric composite.
Finally, fossils from extant species shouldn't be listed here because an extant species is not extinct. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)