Bot markup refinement

[funderburkjim]

Noticed some incompleteness in botanical markup in Wilson. Although the work in #11 got most of the markup needed, some were missed.

First case currently noticed is within context of regex matches ([A-Z][.] ` These occur in 98 lines. There are a few false positives. But a few categories. Here are suggested remedies for the different cases noticed.

Type 1:
OLD:
{#arttagala#}¦ m. ({#-laH#}) Blue barleria, (B. caerulea.)
NEW:
{#arttagala#}¦ m. ({#-laH#}) Blue barleria, (<bot>B. caerulea</bot>.)
OR 
{#arttagala#}¦ m. ({#-laH#}) Blue barleria, (<bot>Barleria. caerulea.</bot>)

WHICH SHOULD WE USE?

Type1a:  almost the same type
OLD:
.²2 A yellow species of <bot>Barleria</bot>, (B. prionitis.)
NEW option 1:
.²2 A yellow species of <bot>Barleria</bot>, (<bot>B. prionitis</bot>.)
NEW option 2:
.²2 A yellow species of Barleria, (<bot>Barleria prionitis</bot>.)
AND still other variations possible.
WHICH SHOULD WE USE?

Type 2 -- The genus must be inferred
OLD:
.²1 A sort of pine, (P. Devadāru.)
NEW:  
.²1 A sort of pine, (<bot>Pinus Devadāru.</bot>)
 Devadāru is not a standard species name. See: https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/devadaru

These are probably most of the 90+ cases.
Please provide feedback on which solution you think should be used.

[gasyoun]

{#arttagala#}¦ m. ({#-laH#}) Blue barleria, (Barleria. caerulea.)

Only not sure about the dot in caerulea.