Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abutilon × hybridum

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abutilon × hybridum

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

Is this article, Abutilon × hybridum, noteworthy? It describes a nebulous "idea" of a taxon, not a real taxon; and even then it is not one that occurs in nature. None of the reliable sources have ever said "I've seen this myself", and described it. Everyone is referring to someone else. A quick Google search shows there is zero affinity of purported specimens; it is just being widely used as a fancy latin version of "hybrid". Even the article itself has two pictures which are definately not from the same nothospecies. So first reason: notability; second reason: impossible to ever reliably source. Any objection to deletion? --Tom Hulse (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article "Incompatibility in Abutilon 'Hybridum'" (K. K. Pandey (1960), American Journal of Botany 47:10, pp. 877–883. JSTOR 2446586) treats this as very much real. Whether a hybrid occurs in nature or solely as a cultivar is by itself of no consequence to the encyclopedic value. If you widen the search term to include Abutilon hybridum with an x or without the ×, Google scholar returns many hits (which I have not examined further). --Lambiam 11:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paper cited states "Abutilon 'Hybridum' is a group of cultivars that has arisen through hybridisation between several Abutilon species, particularly Abutilon darwinii and Abutilon striatum." Is that not a reliable (if secondary) source? Lavateraguy (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: hybrid taxa are not always well defined, especially in horticulture, but Abutilon x hybridum refers to a identifiable group of some horticultural importance. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The typical forms of Abutilon × hybridum are Abutilon darwinii × striatum, but these have been further crossed with Abutilon megapotamicum. Perhaps some cultivars, such as 'Patrick Synge' and 'Cynthia Pike' should be assigned to Abutilon × milleri, but in the absence of breeding records it could take a fair amount of genetic work to identify which. For intermediate forms between the two illustrated in the article see 'Kentish Belle' and 'Yellow Trumpet'.
Keep. Who cares that it isn't a real taxon?; nor is invertebrate, slug or dinosaur. Who cares that it lacks a formal description?; that might place its existence in doubt in the minds of some systematists, but we are under no obligation to take such a polar view. This cultivar group has been deemed worthy of examination in reliable source; that suffices. If a paper were published tomorrow that proved this to be a useless grouping, that would strengthen the case for us to have an article on it. Hesperian 12:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is mentioned in enough reputable gardening books (many hundreds to thousands[1]) that it's plenty notable. Even Missouri Botanical Garden dedicates a page to it.[2] Whether it's been formally published or not, or whether it's a legitimate usage of the formal lingo, is an issue that should be discussed in the article. First Light (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like much of our article is copied directly, or too closely paraphrased, from the Missouri Botanical Garden article I linked just above. If kept, this needs to be rewritten from the source, rather than mostly copied. First Light (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement on propagation is dodgy. There are seed strains, but these plants are usually propagated vegetatively. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the main copy taken from the MBG site (and removed the seed propagation info, though I see now that it is mentioned in the MBG article.) First Light (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most Google sources don't make a claim to taxonomic correctness (just parrotting seed catalogs, etc.), so they are only "reliable" in the sense that yes, lots of people use "hybridum" to replace "hybrid" for lots of very different Abutilon cultivars; they are not reliable sources to show this is a valid nothospecies or cultivar or even cultivar group. For every source you do find that makes a taxonomy claim, there are others, more reliable, that correctly do not treat this as a valid taxon. There was no valid type for the original publication, and there never will be, and there was no parent taxa with the original publication, so it will never be recognized as a valid taxon by serious authors in Abutilon, especially now that everyone uses it for everything hybrid in Abutilon [proof here]. Even the article cited above, the "reliable source" in the American Journal of Botany (just a college kid in the late '50s who bought a seed packet mailorder per the article, not anyone who even looked at Abutilon taxonomy), says that this is a "a group of cultivars", not a legitimate nothospecies, and he also is not able say exactly which species it contains; he claims primarily A. Darwinii & A. striatum (A. Darwinii is a cultivar group, not a species, A. striatum is a syn. for A. pictum), but he doesn't really know. He only definitively says that it has "arisen through hybridization between several Abutilon species" (same as saying this name means multi-hybrid mutt).

So lets separate the "Keep" reasons out: First anyone who says this is a valid taxon, deserving of a taxbox and the full treatment Wikipedia gives taxa, would be in serious error. Second, for instance Hesperian's comment of "Who cares that it isn't a real taxon?; nor is invertebrate, slug or dinosaur", I will certainly bow to consensus as long as we realize how un-notable this article might seem once it is corrected to real reliable sources: No taxobox (per WP:TOL#Taxoboxes) since it is closer to a cultivar, and definately not a taxon; no Cultivar infobox per Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Cultivar infobox since it is not a valid cultivar for several reasons; we can put no dubious claims in the article about parentage since they can't be known; no description since it is impossible to say which group of plants this name describes in relation to other known species or cultivars. So this will be just a stub article for an invalid taxon & invalid cultivar designation that describes no specific group of plants. A stub to basically say this name means nothing. I guess I'm ok with that. Are we going to have a new article for every other invalid designation and synonym now too? --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to see a claim that Abutilon darwinii is a cultivar group, rather than a species. It is treated as a species in the recent Brasilian checklist, and in Martius.

Abutilon striatum (1839) has priority over Abutilon pictum (1842). Lavateraguy (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Multi-hybrid mutts" can have names - see Rhododendron ×superponticum. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, independent of whether it is a taxon and warrants a taxobox, or is just a garden name; its notability as something that someone might look up in Wikipedia seems clear. If I'm following the discussion correctly, a rename might be desirable, though.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that there is a sensible alternative name. This is a much narrower topic than Abutilon hybrids, and Abutilon has rather more currency (at least in the UK) than Chinese lantern or parlour maple. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the vernacular names apply to more than just the hybrids. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lavaterguy, Actually most reliable sources give priority to A. pictum over A. striatum, on the authority of Sida pictum Gillies ex Hook. & Arn., 1933 (1942 is the tranfer date from Sida to Abutilon); which is also why A. pictum has priority here on Wikipedia. Abutilon Darwinii is treated as a cultivar group by many reliable sources. One prominent source is the the ICNCP Code itself where it uses the Abutilon Darwinii group in an example of proper nomenclature in Article 22.2 ex. 2.

Sorry, I overlooked the existence of the basionym. (Several recent floras have used Abutilon striatum, but presumably they are wrong.)

Do you have a reliable source (I only have the 1995 edn of ICNCP, which lacks this example) which says that Abutilon Darwinii Group is the same as Abutilon darwinii? For all I know, Abutilon Darwinii Group could be an alternative name for what is commonly called Abutilon ×hybridum. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that this article is much narrower than the just Abutilon hybrids, I would ask exactly how much narrower? My whole point here is that you don't know, no one has ever or will ever know exactly what this "name" describes. It is meaningless and therefore lacks notability. It belongs only as a blurb in a Taxonomy section on the genus page.

Also, your addition of the "parlor maple" common name should be moved to the genus page, as the source does not support the claim that this applies to A. "x hybridum" directly.

Whatever the scope of "parlor maple", it is not coterminous with the genus Abutilon. Usage probably varies, but the widest plausible usage is section Pluriovulata. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going by the source in the article, I didn't add it. It does say "parlor maple" applies to the genus Abutilon on pg 13. --Tom Hulse (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Rhododendron ×superponticum, it has not yet acheived consensus acceptance, but if it does it might be because the parentage is specifically known, something that is impossible in A. x hybridum because it is widely used by gardeners to replace the word "hybrid", so no one could ever know which plants to DNA test, the originals have long since been lost to mass dilution of the name. --Tom Hulse (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, from English language to bipolar disorder to subtropics to species, Wikipedia contains hundreds of thousands of articles on topics that cannot be precisely circumscribed. We're not about to delete English language just because we're unable to draw a bright line that divides English dialects from non-English dialects. With respect to A. × hybridum, you're probably right that "you don't know, no one has ever or will ever know exactly what this 'name' describes"; but it doesn't follow from that that the name is "meaningless and therefore lacks notability". Hesperian 12:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bright line issue, there is just no line at all. There is nothing relevant you can put in this article, except what it isn't and how it has been incorrectly used. You can't say what it IS. Surely you have some standards of notability? Many of these less-relevant topics are handled every day here by inclusion in a separate article; especially plant articles, where we have a specific convention of only having articles for valid taxa & cultivars. When a name changes, for instance according to new DNA work, and it is widely accepted as valid, then Wikipedia also changes our article name. We don't leave up a whole separate article for every invalid designation, even if people are more likely to initially search for the old one. They can still find it mentioned in the new article just fine. Plants are different at Wikipedia. --Tom Hulse (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abutilon ×hybridum is not just any invalid designation. It is a name of broadly clear designation with an extensive record of use in the horticultural literature. You are proposing not a merge, not a redirection, but a deletion of an article on a notable horticultural entity, on legalistic grounds related to the ICBN. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also propose deleting floribunda (rose) and hybrid tea. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"a name of broadly clear designation"? Absolutely not! :) Also, it is not just legalistic grounds. In plain English, Abutilon x hybridum means nothing. It is not a thing. It's just a word, not a "horticultural entitiy". Per real consensus, the Code defines what words actually represent an entity and which do not (and not just the Code in this case, no one has ever reliably defined what this name means, especially the original author).

If I wanted to delete Datura arborea because taxonomists had replaced it with Brugmansia arborea by wide consensus, and we have all the info we need there (including a note on the older name for those who search for Datura arborea), would you object? If you want a whole separate article for a word like this, then it might be more appropriate for Wikispecies or Wiktionary. How about not really deleting the word from all Wikipedia, just moving it to its appropriate place as part of the genera article (where we normally put these invalid designations, per the Datura example and a thousand others) instead of a stand-alone article; and leave a redirect here to the genera page?

No I wouldn't delete Floribuda or hybrid tea. Both actually mean something and are reasonaly defineable to mean more than just the generic "hybrid"; A. x hybridum is not. --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly object to deleting Datura arborea under those circumstances; it should be (and is) a redirect. Perhaps Abutilon ×hybridum should be a redirect, if there is a better article name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abutilon ×hybridum does not apply to just any hybrid Abutilon. It excludes (Coryn)abutilon ×suntense (vitifolium × ochnense); it excludes Abutilon ×milleri (megapotamicum × pictum); it would exclude hypothetical hybrids of the majority of pairs of Abutilon species. Abutilon ×hybridum strikes me as a fairly close analog to groups of rose cultivars such as floribundas or hybrid teas. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lavateraguy, first you are still not saying what A. x hybridum IS (no one can ever say that). Floribundas and hybrid teas are different because they are definable in multiple ways, as evidenced by all the correct info in the articles. Nothing in our article here is correct.

Second, you can't make claims like it "would exclude hypothetical hybrids of the majority of pairs of Abutilon species: without very reliable references; there are none, including the original description. Martha-stewart-type references and basic houseplant-type books don't count. You need someone who has actually seriously looked at Abutilon, examined the plants, and is not just commenting on what they vaguely percieve the name to usually mean in their little corner of the world. There is no agreement even among these non-reliable sources as to what this name means, and even if they did agree, none of them actually say what the limits of this name includes. Look again at the Google images for these plants. Those 21,000 pics represent every kind of cross in general cultivation today. Anyone who looked at those pics, and then considered that "hybridum" is obviously a simple translation of "hybrid", could not (honestly) claim that this name is not being widely used just to replace "hybrid".

The very most important thing though, is that the Code defines what words actually represent an entity and which do not, which is why you dont see a full article at Datura arborea, even though there are mountains of secular & taxonomic literature about it, and it is still often sold that way from seed suppliers. It's huge, it's relevant, it's used often, but no separate article because the Code says it does not represent any real plants. The Code says the same about A. x hybridum (for many reasons). It's not a technicality, it is the result of very wide consensus that these rules apply. --Tom Hulse (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move information There are two different issues here which seem to me to have been confused above.

Is the information worth having in Wikipedia? Yes, clearly so: it's notability is established by the widespread use of the term in the horticultural literature.
Should the article be at this title? No. It does not represent a clearly identified nothotaxon.

Where should the information be placed? Actually this is a widespread problem with genera containing cultivars of complex and uncertain parentage, particularly where there are no well-established Groups. In the case of Schlumbergera, I put the information on the hybrids/cultivars in the genus article, although I'm not totally happy with this. The same problem arises with Hemerocallis, Hippeastrum, Dahlia, etc. Here I'd be inclined to move the information to Abutilon, at least for the present, leaving a redirect. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Abutilon as preceding, due to literature written and cultivation etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.