Angraecum.org’s research standards govern how evidence is selected, checked, interpreted, and presented across our botanical reference content. Our goal is to help readers trace important claims to their sources and understand the limits of the available information. These standards apply to species profiles, cultivation guides, research explainers, photographs, tables, and tools.
Research begins with a defined question and the identity of the plant or taxon concerned. We establish whether a statement relates to a particular species, a group of plants, an individual specimen, or a specific growing environment. Information should retain that scope when incorporated into an article.
Sources are assessed for expertise, methods, relevance, and independence. Original studies, taxonomic treatments, regional floras, herbarium records, specialist monographs, and established botanical databases serve different purposes. We consult the source best suited to the claim. Several websites repeating one account do not constitute several independent observations. The strength of a statement should reflect the quality and extent of its support.
For names and classification, we use Kew’s Plants of the World Online as a principal taxonomic reference. Its information is organized around accepted names and associated synonyms. The International Plant Names Index supplies nomenclatural and bibliographic records for published names. Our records should identify the reference consulted, the date checked, and relevant differences between the source’s terminology and the name used on our website. Kew Science
Historical names remain important when interpreting older literature. We preserve the connection to the original account and avoid silently transferring observations between differently defined taxa. Disagreements between credible treatments should be explained when they materially affect identification, distribution, or interpretation.
Cultivation research must distinguish natural habitat information from practical growing recommendations. Angraecum includes species with varied ecological and temperature requirements. aos.org A useful cultivation record should identify, where available:
- The plant’s proposed identification and the evidence supporting it.
- The growing location or general climate and whether conditions were indoors, outdoors, or under protection.
- Temperature, light, humidity, airflow, growing medium, and watering practices.
- The observation period, seasonal conditions, and relevant changes in care.
- The outcome, including limitations, unsuccessful results, or uncertainty.
An individual grower’s experience can be informative without establishing a broadly applicable recommendation. We assess whether comparable observations support a wider conclusion and describe the conditions involved. A reported association between a care change and an outcome should not automatically be presented as proof of cause.
For distribution and habitat, we distinguish native-range summaries from individual occurrence records. Our checks consider the recorded identification, date, location, record type, and whether the plant was cultivated. GBIF’s data recommendations include record identifiers, dates, record types, and coordinate uncertainty. We evaluate these details before using records to support a map or geographical claim. Missing records do not, by themselves, demonstrate absence. techdocs.gbif.org
Measurements require units and context. We distinguish flower dimensions, spur length, plant size, and other features rather than treating them as interchangeable. Conversions and derived values should be checked and labeled. Ranges must retain their stated meaning; habitat measurements should not be converted into cultivation limits without supporting evidence. Unknown values remain explicitly unknown.
When discussing pollination, we examine what a study actually observed or tested. Reports of flower visits, pollen transfer, reproductive outcomes, and proposed mechanisms should be described according to the evidence supplied. We identify interpretations and hypotheses, preserve relevant limitations, and avoid extending results beyond the species or conditions studied without justification.
Photographs used as evidence require attention to provenance, identification, and diagnostic detail. Captions should distinguish confirmed information from a contributor’s proposed identification. Illustrations, reconstructions, and AI-generated visuals must be labeled and cannot substitute for documented observations. Permission and attribution are assessed under our Image Credits standards.
Conservation information should identify the assessment source, geographical scope, and date. Assessment categories, population observations, and trade-related listings are recorded separately. We consider whether precise locality details could expose vulnerable wild populations to harm and may use a broader geographical description.
Before publication, important claims and references require human verification. Search snippets and AI-generated summaries can help locate material but are not substitutes for checking the relevant source. If access is limited to an abstract or a secondary account, our wording must not imply examination of the full original work. We do not invent missing data or citations.
Specialist input is credited according to the review performed. Important limitations, conflicting findings, and evidence gaps should remain visible after editing. Content is reconsidered when credible new information or a reported error changes the evidential basis of a claim. Material changes are documented through our Corrections Policy.
Readers can contribute sources or question a research decision through our Contact page. Please identify the relevant page and claim, provide the supporting material, and explain how it affects the interpretation. Well-supported challenges help improve the reference.