Talk:Chione venosa

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 21 January 2011 by reviewer CharlieEchoTango (talk · contribs).

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Taxobox

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I believe that more important than assign the tribe in taxobox is to indicate the type species, especially if there is any doubt about the synonymy. Chione should probably be treated in Kubitzki Vol. 10, then would be clarified the number of species. Berton (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just to know that Rutaceae (and no Rubiaceae) would be treated in Vol. 10. Sorry! Berton (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I dont think that it would overcrowd the taxobox to include both. I think that it would be good to include the next taxon above the article subject in the taxobox, even when it is "sub" or "infra" group that would not normally be included. I must admit that i had considerable reservations about including tribes in Rubiaceae, because they might change in the near future. This situation will probably not stabilize until the family is finally covered in the Kubitzki series.

For a non-technical article, i prefer a currently accepted species name for the type species. What ING gives is actually the biological type for the genus, which may be a superseded name or no longer accepted at species rank. I dont know of any recommendation by WikiProject Plants on this. 128.171.106.253 (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

"In modern nomenclature, the type of a genus (often referred to as the generitype) is systematically that of a published species (although that specific name might be currently regarded as a synonym), and thus only a species name is cited." (from Type species)

I also do not know about the position of WikiProject Plants on this (type species in taxobox).

I could not see the whole revision work you mentioned, but I read on the first page that the author (D. W. Taylor) refers to Chione glabra as the type species.

By the way, in this moment there is an interesting discussion about minor ranks in taxobox at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Minor_ranks_on_species_articles_in_Fabaceae.2C_Orchidaceae.2C_and_Poaceae

Birgita Bremer in Bremer, B. 2009. A Review of Molecular Phylogenetic Studies of Rubiaceae. Annals Miss Bot Garden 96(1): 4–26, includes it close to Hamelieae–Hillieae, what actually is an indetermination.

Thank you for explanations.Berton (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Add topic