Talk:Drosera capensis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Brentbenedum.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone fix the "edit sections"

Can anyone fix the "edit sections" for the References, External links and Invasive species sections? I do not know how to.

—72.91.241.104 (talk)19:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take care of it. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks —72.91.241.104 (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Add pix?

Is it okay to add some flower pix of Drosera capenisis? Maybe in place of "Drosera capenisis with prey"

—72.91.214.104 (Contribs|talk) 20:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's ok to replace that one since the leaf is shown in the first image. This is on my list of articles to expand anyway, so we'll be able to provide even more images soon when there's more text. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 18:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Evaluation

The very first opening sentence had 3 sources listed, this could easily be reduced to one single source. Source #3, is from a readers digest from 1992, this easily could be updated. D. capensis self-pollinates. Needed reference. "It does not require a terrarium although it can benefit from one." This statement needs a source, and potentially show some photos to discuss the effect of humidity on the mucilage production.

There is a lot of descriptive details about the plant structure. Possibly add to this place with more sources, and make a clear section "structure".

The section "Invasive Species" is only listed with the fact it is one. Extend on the ways this plant may be classified as an invasive plant.

In section "Reproduction" the author states that Cape Sundews are commonly referred to as a weed. Maybe this could get reworded into something more scientific. Such as the ability for the sundew to grow with such vigor and intensely multiply after every season makes this species hardy. More data should be gathered from the "Cultivation" section making it more detailed for those people growing the plant for recreation/hobby. It states some information about the climate they can live in, but nothing about the soil composition, pH level, and nutrient requirements. The section cultivation offers a single source for their findings, here it could be expanded on using multiple references.

Overall this paper is brief and lacking in various up-to-date sources. The photos are clear and represent the descriptions well. The author does a good job at listing the types of cultured strains of capensis available commercially. More details about the invasive species list should be added, or delete the entire section and incorporate it into another section. Brentbenedum (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Drosera Capensis eating a fruit fly.webm, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 1, 2025. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2025-06-01. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Jay8g [V•T•E] 05:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Drosera capensis, commonly known as the Cape sundew, is a perennial rosette-forming carnivorous plant in the family Droseraceae. It is endemic to the Western Cape and Eastern Cape provinces of South Africa. As in all sundews, the leaves are covered in stalked, mucilage-secreting glands (or 'tentacles') that attract, trap, and digest arthropod prey. When prey is captured, the tentacles bend inward and the leaves curl around it, preventing escape and enhancing digestion by increasing the surface area of the leaf in contact with the prey. This time-lapse video shows a D. capensis leaf curling up around a Mediterranean fruit fly over a period of approximately six hours.

Video credit: Scott Schiller

Recently featured:

• Cucumis metuliferus
• Ignace Tonené
• Australian white ibis

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Drosera capensis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Yummifruitbat (talk · contribs) 11:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: EF5 (talk · contribs) 17:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Will be reviewing as part of GARC. ^EF⁵ 17:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Ping @EF5 — just wondering if you are likely to do this review or if I should look for someone else to pick it up? No worries if it's not for you. YFB ¿ 12:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yummifruitbat, apologies, I went on a 2-week wikibreak and this exited my field of memory. I'll get right to it today. — ^EF⁵ 13:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to finish the review tomorrow (really, I acknowledge that I've dropped the ball on timing here); I've been quite busy and the article is decently-sized. ^EF⁵ 20:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I actually couldn't up with a ton of comments; most GA criterion points were already met. Good job! Just a few more linking-related things that need cleaned up then I'll pass. ^EF⁵ 22:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I think these are all done now. YFB ¿ 08:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Ping @EF5 - did you have any more feedback and/or are you happy with the changes I've made based on your earlier points please? YFB ¿ 23:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   See below.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It's a species article, so it's only expected that it goes into detail about the plant in question, which it does.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No peacock words stand out to me and it overall is neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars, so good here. ^EF⁵ 20:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   See below.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Prose

• it can form threads up to 1 m long - The "1 m" part needs a {{convert}} template.  Done
• Copious seed is produced in dehiscent capsules - Should this be plural?

Seed/s is a weird one, seed can be countable or uncountable so it is quite common to use 'seed' referring to the uncountable plural, see (4) in wikt:seed... but I've changed it to 'seeds are produced'.  Done

• The plant produces one, two[2] or occasionally three[8] inflorescences, - Refs need put after the comma after "inflorescences".  Done
• As of May 2025 - It's now June, but this is optional.

It was May when I wrote it :) — converted to As of template and updated text and ref access date to June.  Done

• n Hawai'i, although not known to be naturalised - Link Hawai'i.

I thought that would be considered OVERLINKing but  Done

• The first mention of New Zealand needs linked in the lead

 Done

• Drosera needs linked in lead

 Done

• Mucilage needs linked in the "mucilage" section

 Done

Refs

• Is Roderick P. Randall a subject expert?

Well, he seems to be. The previous (2nd) edition, same author, was published by the Western Australia Dept of Food and Agriculture and lists the author as a biologist employed by that dept. It was favourably reviewed in Plant Protection Quarterly (available on ProQuest via Wikpedia Library here: ). The various editions of the book get cited a lot in academic papers and government reports about weeds and invasive species. D. capensis is listed in the 2nd edition too if that's preferable over the more recent self-published update? I'm not sure why the 2017 edition is self-published, I guess possibly he retired and decided to release another edition? In any case, all the data in the Compendium seems to be rigorously sourced to reliable publications, so combined with the earlier editions published by a reputable body I think it passes WP:SPS. YFB ¿ 00:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. ^EF⁵ 20:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Images

• File:Drosera capensis bend.JPG - Could the "No machine-readable source provided" be replaced with "own work" and "Noah Elhardt" in their respective columns?

 Done

• Per MOS:ALT, all images need alt texts.

 Done

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 10:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Leaf of Drosera capensis bending around a captured insect

• ...that despite a reputation as a weed and its status as an invasive species in New Zealand, Drosera capensis (pictured) is uncommon in its native habitat?

• Source: D'Amato, Peter (1998). The Savage Garden: Cultivating Carnivorous Plants. p. 127 ("They produce scores of showy flowers on tall stems and are so simple to propagate they often become a weed in collections.")

https://pierpestregister.mpi.govt.nz/pests-of-concern/pest-details/?id=90609 Official New Zealand Pest Register. Biosecurity New Zealand.

https://doi.org/10.55360%2Fcpn494.rg752

• • ALT1: ... that the red form of Drosera capensis (pictured) was the first carnivorous plant in order Caryophyllales to undergo whole-genome sequencing? Source: https://doi.org/10.55360%2Fcpn494.rg752 https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fprot.25095
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: My first DYK nomination, apologies if I have formatted anything incorrectly.

Improved to Good Article status by Yummifruitbat (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

YFB ¿ 20:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC).

Review

• I like the hook, but would suggest to reformulate: ... that despite a reputation as a weed and its status as an invasive species in New Zealand, Drosera capensis (pictured) is uncommon in its native habitat?

I agree that this is better. Should I change it above? YFB ¿ 21:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes please, but please check if your use of "weed" matches the definition in the article Weed. I wonder if you instead wanted to write "despite being a popular cultivar" here? If, instead, "weed" is referring to the invasive plants in New Zealand, I think you can remove the word from the hook because you already say it is invasive in New Zealand. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

No, I meant it as used. It is notorious among carnivorous plant growers as a weed because it grows to maturity in a single season, flowers readily, and sprinkles thousands of minute, easily-wind-blown seeds into all adjacent containers, where they either germinate immediately or sometimes spring up a couple of years later. It's a bit of a joke in the community that plants purchased from specialist nurseries quite often come with a 'free' D. capensis as a hitchhiker, and also that it doesn't really take any care to maintain in cultivation beyond not letting it dry out for too long so it's considered borderline un-killable. This is what makes it so curious that it's not particularly common in the wild. YFB ¿ 21:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• The source provided above does not seem to support the hook, but the sources in the article do.

The designation as an 'unwanted organism' on that page is the way that invasive plant and animal species are represented in the New Zealand legal framework, I think. I found the submission form fiddly so didn't include every source, as you say others in the article also support this. YFB ¿ 21:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• From the article: D. capensis is often uncommon or localised in its native habitat, although it may become locally numerous where competing vegetation is suppressed, such as following a fire. – I would drop the first "or localised", since you repeat that in the second part of the sentence.

I think 'localised' would be understood as 'restricted to specific localities' without specifying how numerous it is there, whereas 'locally numerous' specifically refers to it occasionally becoming much more frequent under specific conditions. So I didn't read that as repetitive, but I don't mind adjusting the wording as you suggest. YFB ¿ 21:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

OK. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Sectioning in the article is quite granular and complicated, and therefore difficult to navigate. Compare with our Plant FAs, to see what I mean. I would also collapse the large table per default since it looks overwhelming. (These points are optional, but I had to point this out)

I had thought it was considered helpful to have some sub-division of longer sections into subheadings, as an aid to navigation, rather than the opposite. I will take another look at this. I agree about collapsing the table. YFB ¿ 21:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Another general (and optional) point: The article could benefit from applying Summary Style more consequently. My impression is that it indiscriminately absorbed any possible detail that could be found. For example, I am not convinced that the two forms described by Adrian Slack in a popular gardening book are relevant enough to mention here; this is not a scholarly source, and was possibly only meant as a rough guide to gardeners, not to actually establish a novel classification.

I disagree here, both with the general point and the example. I could have gone into much more detail on many of the technical areas but instead have provided quite a high level summary. Adrian Slack was considered an authority on carnivorous plants and his books were influential (a species of sundew is named for him); he named numerous hybrids and cultivars that are still widely grown. He seems to have been the first to identify any distinct growth forms (of which several are now recognised) which is why I included that reference. Reviewers noted that the book cited contained significant technical information and was poorly titled, giving the misleading impression of being aimed only at general gardeners. Happy to consider other examples you see as indiscriminate. YFB ¿ 21:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I see, my apologies, I was obviously mistaken. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Some sentences don't have inline citations.

I will check through, but my intent was that near enough every statement in the article is supported by an inline ref. Some of these are at the end of a paragraph if the whole paragraph is supported by the source. I thought that was acceptable? YFB ¿ 21:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I see two unsourced sentences: "Vernation is geniculate-involute, the lamina first unfolding from the petiole, and the lamina margin and tentacles unfurling outward from the leaf axis"; and "In summer, the plant produces one or two relatively tall inflorescences, each with between 15–30 flowers. The petals are typically pale purple." Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, agree about the vernation, it's definitely correct but I have struggled to find a source that says it specifically about this species - I'll have another look, or include a photo series to illustrate it if that's acceptable. The second one is a summary of what's in the Flowers and seeds section where all facts are cited inline. YFB ¿ 22:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Looks good otherwise; a recent GA, no copyvio or plagiarism issues are obvious, reliable sources are mostly used (some, like Plant Pono, look questionable to me, also see my comment above). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on the Plant Pono point please? What is questionable about it? Which other sources do you consider questionable?YFB ¿ 21:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

No, I misunderstood; it's fine, especially for what it is cited for. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

All good now. Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)