Talk:Bogoria (plant)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Mathmitch7 in topic Merger proposal
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Merger proposal
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was not at this time (self-close). - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 12:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I propose to merge the genus page Rhinerrhizopsis into the genus page Bogoria (plant). This is because these genera are now recognized as heterotypic synonyms. (see entry on WCSP and on Wikispecies). I'm trying to track down a specific citation that covers the specific genera reclassifications that have happened recently (one piece is this 2015 paper by Chase, Cameron, et al.) but needless to say that this also implicates cleanup for List of Orchidaceae genera. This is hardly my area of expertise so I'd appreciate further input and guidance before I make any further changes in this space. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 20:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The names Rhinerrhizopsis and Rhinerrhizopsis matutina are accepted by the Australian Plant Census.[1][2] I do not know why the change was made at WCSP and POWO, and maybe the APC is slow to update, but I suggest that the redirect from Rhinerrhizopsis matutina to Bogoria matutina should also have been discussed first. Gderrin (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Rhinerrhizopsis". Australian Plant Census. Retrieved 13 May 2021.
- ^ "Rhinerrhizopsis matutina". Australian Plant Census. Retrieved 13 May 2021.
- You are welcome to move Bogoria matutina back to the previous name if you wish and discuss the move there -- I was simply following the lead from Wikispecies (which, to be fair, has very little patrolling and quality controls) and maybe 5-6 other databases I checked before executing the move. Hard to say what constitutes an "accepted" name change but it seemed "a plurality of databases and the authors of the original description" was sufficient. It seemed uncontroversial, unlike the genus relation which is messier. I think I agree that a merge of the genera pages is unwarranted at this time, so I'll self-close. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 12:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
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.