Talk:Dendrosenecio

Start class

"The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element."

• a particularly useful picture or graphic
• multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
• a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
• multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article

-- carol (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's definitely a B-class. You're more than welcome to alter the project ratings if you see they need to be. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 14:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Alps

Could you discuss how you think the Alps are like the mountains of Africa? The problem is this article isn't about the mountains of Africa, even just the eastern ones, and the geological processes of formation for the Alps and for the eastern African volcanoes where Dendrosenecio makes its home are not much alike. Maybe if I understood where you were going with this statement and how you mean it to improve the article and understanding of the topic I could reword it, or someone could. --Blechnic (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It was something that I read; a comparison and what should have been a simplification of all of the technical reasons that makes those Eastern African mountains extremely nice to work with. The same thing is mentioned in more than one of the literature I read "summer everyday and winter every night" was one thing I read and that was again quoted. The fact that the mountains exist so close to or at the equator; it made (at least for me) a lot of sense that the flora would be similar to the more familiar flora that exist in the Alps, but easier to study because the the days do not change that much throughout the year. It is not such an important part of the article; it is the first time that I thought about such a thing and I included it in the case that the article would be read by others who were thinking about these things for the first time. Honestly, the word 'alpine' gets used a lot for so many things -- scientifically and commercially and even in other technical-ish things like to describe an architecture style and other things like that -- in many ways, the alps themselves might have gotten lost. The zone is called by some Afro-alpine but there seems to be various phrases to define each of the altitude areas, I tried to avoid that. I am curious what might be the reason they use the word alpine to describe the area. I don't doubt what you are saying, I actually might be confused with all of the different word combinations I read that attempted to define the different regions -- I can tell you that I mentioned that they call the one area Afro-alpine but I did not like it for the reasons I mentioned already.

And more, I appreciate that you took the time to read it and think about it also -- it is very new to me and extremely interesting. Thanks -- carol (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The word alpine has two primary meanings in English, the first having to do with altitudes, the second meaning of the Alps, as in the European mountain chain. Using the word in one meaning (above timberline) does not mean that it means the second (of the Alps) each time.

If you're reading works and they are saying "alpine" and you're translating as "like the Alps" you are confusing the two meanings.

The Alps, for example, are not equatorial mountains. And equatorial mountains are very different because of tropical moisture regimes, even when they are arid.

If you mean, merely that the mountains have similar altitudinal gradients as the Alps, this is true of all tall mountains of the world, even the ones that don't have snow. I believe this all that you meant, that the tall mountains of Africa have altitudinal gradients just like other tall mountains of the world, and that these are changes are seen in the changes of vegetation, including an alpine zone.

But to say they are like the Alps does not define how they are. To say they have alpine zones and a timberline does. --Blechnic (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The exact quote was this: "With respect to their geologic origin, mountains in northwest Africa are closely related to European mountains like the Alps. Correspondingly, climate, flora and vegetation display strong similarities to Mediterranean mountains like the Sierra Nevada in Spain, and mediate to the arid sites of central northern Africa."[1] and it is somewhat obvious that my rewrite needs a rewrite; but not at the end of such a busy day. Whatever I meaning I associate with the word alpine is what my old gardners ear hears and that ear hears "small and expensive plants that don't need a lot of water" and I tried to keep that out of this. -- carol (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you realize that these mountains that these plants grow on are mostly in Eastern Africa and Central Africa, and that the article and quote you provide is about mountains in northwestern Africa which are, indeed, geologically like the Alps? I will remove this source and sentence. Please find an article about the geology of the mountains in Eastern Africa.--Blechnic (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That was the "it is somewhat obvious" in my earlier comment. The word "yard" to describe a distance started life as the length of a European rulers arm? I was also suggesting that the word "alpine" is such a word. I have seen neither of the three mountains that are now being discussed so using one to compare the others is a lesson in futility and I stick by my opinion which is that I dislike the use of that word. The range maps are accurate; my juggling of the descriptions (one mountain being "like the Alps" and the other mountains having regions named 'alpine') is inaccurate, my dislike of the use of the word alpine as a yardstick to measure all other mountains with is a personal opinion which is every passing minute having more and more experience to form it with! Thank you for knowing the difference before reading this article, btw. It obviously needed a knowing and enlightened eye. -- carol (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You already removed it and I remember reading this and thinking that it was probably a good idea to remove it. -- carol (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

three sections that all say the same thing

I think that the biggest problem with this article is that there are three sections that all say the same thing and too much paste within them. -- carol (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact checking

1) the claim that a specimen is attributed to Kinshasa in a herbarium record is not supported by the reference. Congo (Kinshasa) - also Congo (Leopoldville) - is an outdated denotation for the former Belgian Congo, also at various times reference to as Zaire and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and which contrasts with Congo (Brazzaville), the former French Congo, now, IIRC, the Republic of Congo. That the record refers to the country is obvious, as more specific geographical information is also provided. Claim deleted. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

2) as I understand botanical usage synonymy is not necessarily a reflexive relationship; Dendrosenecio is a synonym or segregate, depending on taxonomic opinion, of Senecio, but Senecio is not a synonym of Dendrosenecio. What is a synonym (basionym, as specified in the cited references) is subgenus Dendrosenecio. I've changed this taxobox to reflect this, and deleted the cluttering text about sources; in-line references are sufficient in my opinion. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

3) according to a little googling cabbage tree applies, inter alia, to the tree Senecios of St. Helena, and not those of East Africa. I've also rewritten the lead, replacing the references with one that isn't paywalled, and moving the material on convergence out of the lead. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

4) I don't trust the inference that herbarium records lack locality data. With one exception, the records in Aluka lacking this are from a Belgian herbarium; it could at least as well be that it is only the digitised data set used by Aluka that lacks this information. I've removed this claim, and split off the following non-sequiturial (what simplication?) text into a separate paragraph. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

5) this may be a case of if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. For a genus which is restricted to a few mountain ranges a distribution map showing the countries in which it is found is less than ideal. Apart from that, it turns out to be inaccurate, omitting Rwanda from the countries in which the genus is found. (The cited PNAS paper, for example, mentions this.) Lavateraguy (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

6) the list of terminal taxa turns out to be a list of species; a true list of terminal taxa would also include subspecies and varieties. I've retitled it, and removed/relocated the information about distribution, which there is no need to duplicate between here and the subsequent sections. It also neglects to mention the presence of D. battiscombei and D. keniodendron in the Aberdares as well as on Mt. Kenya. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)